HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-15-1987 ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1987
7: 30 P.M.
OLD POST OFFICE
CHAPEL HILL, N.C.
A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of
time so that you are not overlooked. )
2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
C. MINUTES
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of
Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens
to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner,
both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any
time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail
to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the
offending person to leave the meeting until that indivi-
dual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to
be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until
such time that a genuine commitment to this public
charge is observed.
PAGE # PUBLIC HEARING
002 * 1. Capital Improvement Program
D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS
E. REPORTS
003 1. Fire Marshal Report
PAGE # F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
013 1. Budget Amendments
015 2 . Proposal for User Fee Assessment
020 3 . By-Laws of Environmental Affairs Board
023 4. Addition of Street "A" and Street "B" in the
Councilville Community to the State-Maintained Road
System
G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
027 * 1. Application for Airport Feasibility Study;
Procedures
028 2 . House Numbering
029 H. APPOINTMENTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION --PROPERTY MATTER
I. ADJOURNMENT
(*) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
ORANGE COUNTY Action Age
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item Ho.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
MEETING DATE December 15, 1987 0 0 i
Subject: MINUTES
1 Department: BOARD OF COMMIISSIONERS 1 i Public Hearing: Yes X no
Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe
Under Separate Cover
Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968--4501,
227-0231
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration:
August 3, 1987 - Regular Meeting
December 1 , 1987 - Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing
Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official
journal of the Board' s proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION:
As the Board decides.
ORANGE COUNTY 002
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action A ends
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: DECEMBER 15, 1987
SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S
NONE
OFFICE,X501
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the Proposed Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
BACKGROUND: On November 17, 1987 staff submitted to the Board the Capital
Improvement Program requesting projects in the amount of
$58,713,289. 00. Work sessions with County departments and
both school systems have been held to discuss project requests
specifically; however, the public hearing will provide citi-
zens their first opportunity to comment on the proposed CIP.
The Proposed CIP includes:
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools
Major Construction/
Renovation Projects $27,002,409. 00
Orange County Schools
Major Construction/
Renovation Projects $11,857, 300. 00
Orange County Government
Major Construction/Renovation
Projects and Equipment $13, 355,580. 00
Recreation and Parks Master Plan . . $ 6,498, 000. 00
TOTAL $58,713,289.00
A
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO_E 1,
MEETING DATE DECEMBER 15, 1987
SUBJECT: Fire Marshal Report 003
DEPARTMENT: Emergency Services PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO I
ATTACHMENT (S): Yes INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Baker
PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8161
CHAPEL HILL 929-8109
PURPOSE: To provide information to the Board regarding a fire marshal position.
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Chief's Council requested funding for a
county fire marshal's position. The Board of County
Commissioners requested that this office compile a report to
assist them in their consideration of this request.
RECOMMENDATION (S): Informational only
004
FIRE MARSHALL REPORT
November, 1987
Sri
005
There are ten fire departments in Orange County, two paid departments
and eight volunteer fire departments. Together, these departments
answered 1,854 fire calls in 1986. The two paid departments, Chapel
Hill and Carrboro, have their own paid Fire Marshal. Therefore,
the paid departments have not been included in this report since
a county fire marshal would not directly serve these departments.
In July, 1987, the Orange County Fire Chief's Council requested
funding for a county fire marshal's position. This request was accompanied
by a letter of support from all of the fire departments except one.
The Hillsborough Fire Department did not support creating a fire
marshal position. They did not feel that there would be enough work
in the rural areas of the county to justify a full-time fire marshal
position.
To determine what other counties were doing about the role of
a fire marshal, this office sent out fifteen questionaires. These
questionaires were sent to counties with similar needs as Orange.
County.
From these questionaires (see attached), we obtained the following
information. Four counties have a full-time paid fire marshall position.
All of these counties have twenty fire departments or more and answered
over 1,300 calls in 1986.
Nine counties combined the position of fire marshall with at
least one other position. The fire calls answered varied from 380
to 2000 calls in 1986 and the number of fire departments in each
county ranged from eight departments to 32 departments.
Only one county had no one acting as fire marshal . This county
answered 452 calls in 1986 and has eight fire departments.
-2-
006
Orange County has eight volunteer fire departments. These departments
answered the following number of calls:
1983 1984 1985 1986
681 527 823 689
- If the Orange County Board of Commissioners decided to approve
a fire marshal position, it appears that combining the position with
other roles and responsibilities would be most cost effective to
the county. The following are roles and responsibilities that this
position might include:
1. Attends meetings and serves on committees, boards and agencies
related to promoting fire prevention and improving fire suppression.
2. Acts as liaison between the existing and potential volunteer
fire departments and the Board of County Commissioners and other
county agencies.
3. Keeps the Board of County Commissioners informed of any matters
pertaining to the present and future expansion of rural fire departments.
4. Assists volunteer fire departments in planning and developing
training programs.
5. Coordinates fire prevention inspections of schools, day care
centers, foster homes, nursing homes, residential care facilities
and other facilities open to the public.
6. Assists fire departments and schools in organizing and implementing
fire prevention programs.
7. Assists fire departments in obtaining proper equipment.
8. Makes periodic inspections of all fire departments to see that
they conform to standards of the North Carolina Fire Rating Bureau.
9. Assists in the investigations of fires of suspicious nature
so as to determine their cause.
10. Assists fire departments in a fire prevention program in their
respective districts.
11. Assists in developing and implementation of County fire prevention
codes.
12. Assists fire departments in developing the annual budget proposals
to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners.
-3-
007
13. Assists the county hazardous materials team in planning and developing
training.
14. Assists the hazardous materials team in developing and maintaining training
programs, equipment, etc.
15. Coordinates special emergency management projects as required by the
emergency services director.
16. Assists in emergency planning and coordination for disasters.
17. Assists in the identification of local resources for use during emergency
situations.
18. Assists the fire departments in meeting the requirements to reduce the
protection class for their districts and thus lower the fire insurance premiums
for the citizens in the districts. At present, all the rural fire departments
except White Cross (newly established) has a protection class: 9. It is possible
to achieve a class 7 rating for rural fire departments. This would result in a
savings of approximately $100.00 annually on fire insurance premiums on a
$100,000.00 structure. (see attached illustrations)
The cost for this position would include salary, housing, transportation
and miscellaneous.
ANTICIPATED COST
Salary, fringe benefits $ 25,488.00
Transportation 1,500.00
Telephone 750.00
Travel & Training 1,500.00
Postage 500.00
Printing 250.00
Office Supplies 250.00
Uniforms 250.00
Dues & Subscriptions 250.00
Office Equipment 750.00
Vehicle 12,250.00
Radios 5,000.00
Total 48,988.00
Funding for this position could come from:
1. General Tax Revenue
2. Fire Tax Revenue
3. A combination of general and fire tax revenue from each district.
This employee could be housed in the County Emergency Services facility
and be under the Office of Emergency Services.
ODUNTY FIRE DEPTS. SERVED FIRE CALLS IN 1986 FIRE MARSHALL POSITION
Moore 16 2000 Combined - Fire Marshal, Emergency Medical Services, Em. Management
Robeson 32 1800 Combined - Fire Marshal, Emergency Medical Services
Iredell 19 1700 Full Time Fire Marshal
Randolph 20 1500 Full Time Fire Marshal
Nash 16 1500 Full Time Fire Marshal
Sampson 17 1500 Combined - Fire Marshal, Emergency Management
Pitt 20 1500 Combined - Fire Marshal, Emergency Management, Emergency Medical
Chatham 8 1300 Combined -Fire Marshal, Emergency Management
Rowan 27 1300 Full Time Fire Marshal
Alamance 13 1300 Combined - Fire Marshal, Emergency Management Coordinator
Duplin 800 Combined - Fire Marshal, Emergency Management, Emergency
Medical Services, Safety Officer
Caswell 10 600 Volunteer Fire Marshal
Rockingham 18 486 Combined - Fire Marshal, Emergency Management
Stokes 9 380 Combined - Fire Marshal- Safety Director, Emergency Management
Lee 8 NO FIRE MARSHALL POSITION
ORANGE 8 689
GO
O
O
Attachment 1
___
� ����K�
uv��eo
PRnTECTION ,CLASG: , 0
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 1997
TYPE OE CONSTRUCTION: FRAME
ABOl.i : THE HOUSE PROTECTION DEVICE: SMOKE DETECTOR
TERRITORY: �2
PREMIUM GROUP: �G
___ ... __ _____________________________
COVERAGE A $100,000 LIMIT ON THE DWELLING
COVERAGE B $10,000 LIMIT ON APPURTENANT STRUCT: RES
POLICY COVERAGES COVERAGE C $70,000 LIMIT ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
COVERAGE D $20 , 000 ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES
COVERAGE E $100,000 COMPREHENSIVE PERSONAL LIABILITY
COVERAGE F $1 ,000 MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS
HO-46 THEFT EXTENSION
HO-265 REPLACEMENT COST ON CONTENTS
. • $250 DEDUCTIDLE ON COVERAGE S A,B, & C
.
_ ,_-_________________________-______-_-_________
BASE PREMIUM: 819. 00
PREMIUMS• & CREDIT8 PROTECTION DEVICE CREDIT: 8. 00
LIABILITY: 0. 00
HO-46 THEFT EXTENSION: 0. 00
1-10-26• REPLACEMENT ON CONTENTS: 8J. 00
TOTAL PREMIUM: $894. 00
.
� '
"' . ,
� �
'
^ `
� � ^ ` ^ ' � � ' '
� �' � `� ' ` �
' �'� ^�' . ' �
. .� `/ � � �
`' � ' .
� .
�� � '� ` �
'
' '^
. • `
�
`
• .
' 1 - ' �
.
� . .
.
.� � '
` .�
' '
• .`--
.' �
� `�' .`� �� .
`
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
• • • '
•
PROTECT ON ��ASS: 09
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION2 1987
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTlON: FRAME
ABOUT THE HOUSE PROTECTION DEVICE: SHOKE DLL t..11"
TERRITORY: 32
PREMIUM GROUP: 17
COVERAGE .A $100,000 LIMIT ON THE DWELLING
COVERAGE B $10, 000 LIMIT ON APPURTENANT STRUCTURES
POLICY COVERAGES COVERAGE C 0 • 0 LIMlT ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
COVERAGE D $20, 000 ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES
COVERAGE E $100,000 COMPREHENSIVE PERSONAL LIABILlTY
• COVERAGE F $1 ,000 MEDICAL PAYMENTS Tu OTHERS
H0-46 THEFT EXTENSION
HO-265 REPLACEMENT COST ON CONTENTS
$250 DEDUCTIBLE ON COVERAGES AB & C
.....____....._______ ___________________
BA8E PREMIUM: 646. 00
PREMIUMS Xi CREDITS PROTECTION DEVICE CREDIT: 6. 00
LIABILITY: 0. 00
HO-46 THEFT EXTENSION: 0. 00
HO-265 REPLACEMENT ON CONTENTS; 74. 00
TOTAL PREMIUM: $:716. O0
•
•
•
•
•
��
' `� •
. '
.• .! ,
•
•
•
•
' '
•
t
• '
•
• . • ' ''
• • '
•
•
•
'
•
•
� <` ^• ' •
`�
011.
PROTECT':1:C:)1\1 (::;L...fta'a: 0
YEAR OF (:'.(:::+1'tl",;..i..l.?(..li::. 1':f.ON:: . 14'
.1.•,,,I.::I.ii: t::1F= CONSTRUCTION:N„ f::f::'tt•'ll"!I::::
II.
.:' L + THE l `....L PROTECTION DLV C tf ;: SMOKE DETECTOR
PREMIUM GNOUP:,'. 16
COVERAGE A $100,00(.-$ LIMIT ON .fl..flE DWELLING
COVERAGE B 10, 000 !Ti`''i I• ON APPURTENANT ,.:; Ir.:.Ov:: IURi:
DLICY +::L.'.'i::_::;,,;,+_.,... COVERAGE $70,000 LIMIT ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
COVERAGE l;:a $20. 00 T + ]:Oi`•Ir•11_.. LIVING EXPENSES
(-.r(''JI:;aR(. GL:- L::: $100,QOU l.:+il°i, 1[E::aHl.-._IVL' 1:::: F='Ei•: ;i,(J{•,JAi.,. LIABILITY
t i ;ERAGE • : $1 ,000 MEDICAL PAYMENTS IC OTHERS
L.•I(::'r46 THEFT l° I L::X..I.El'Ji: :I:(:ii`,I
L..i(:12 : 5 REPLACEMENT ( tsT N CONTENTS
.
n%21. L?t:-T` --(L I I i.+l....l:::. ON COVERAGES A y D . C
DOSE PREMIUM: 604 t..y+.?
LIABILITY: 0. 00
HO 46 •.L.{•' E "! 1::i;'!ENS I!U'N
HO-265 i;L"=E=1_..r='a+' Lie ENT ON (:;t::iN..I.ti r,i..i"C . 72. 00
--101 AL F'RENiJ1-1f; . •k,e :1. . 00
•
. .
Cur/Pm, : N. C. RATE BUREAU
QUOTE EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/24/87
HO FORM: HO-3
______________________________________________________
PROTECTION CLASS: 07
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 1987
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: FRAME
A8OUT THE HOUSE PROTECTION DEVICE: SMOKE DETECTOR
TERRITORY: 32
PREMIUM GROUP: 15
________________________
COVERAGE A $100,000 LIMIT ON THE DWELLING •
COVERAGE B $10,000 LIMIT ON APPURTENANT STRUCTURES
F'OLlCY COVERAGES COVERAGE C $70,000 LIMIT ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
COVERAGE D S20, 000 ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES
COVERAGE E $100, 000 COMPREHENSIVE PERSONAL LIABILITY
COVERAGE F $1 , 000 MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS
HO-46 THEFT EXTENSION
HO 265 REPLACEMENT COST ON CONTENTS
$250 DEDUCTIBLE ON COVERAGES A, 8, & C
���������� ...
����������������
BASE PREMIUM: 539. 00
PREMIUMS & CREDITS PROTECTlON DEVI�E CREDIT: 5' 00
` LIA8ILITY� 0. 00
HO-46 THEFT EXTENIJN: 0. 0
HO-265 9EPLACEMENT ON CONTENTS: 69. 00
TOTAL PREMIUM: ' $603. 00
• `
. �
�
� t
r
o1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action A"da
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 15 , 1987
SUBJECT: Budget Amendments
DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Budget Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To approve the following budget amendments :
1 . On December 1 , 1987 , the Board of Commissioners approved
the acceptance of CBA expansion funds . These funds total
$4 , 323 and will be allocated for the following programs :
1 . 4-H Goodbye Cinderella $ 831 . 00
2 . 4-H Scholarships 2 , 359 . 00
3 .' Project Attend 1 , 133 . 00
The required local match of $1 , 297 will be provided by
the agencies that are to receive the expansion funds .
2 . Implementation of the County ' s Animal Control Ordinance ,
effective January 1 , 1988 , will require additional funds
to be budgeted in the Health Department . On December 1 ,
1987 , the Board of Commissioners approved the release of
$16 , 330 from Contingency to implement the new ordinance .
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve motion to amend the 1987-88 Budget Ordinance
by the proposed amendments .
014
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
1987-88 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
The 1987-88 Budget Ordinance as adopted on August 4 , 1987 , and
subsequently amended , is hereby amended as follows :
BEFORE AFTER
AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT
1 . General Fund
Appropriation :
4-H and Youth - CBA $ 0 $ 3 , 190 $ 3 , 190
Project Attend - CBA 10 , 000 1 , 133 :..11 , 133
Source :
Community Based Alternatives 97 , 267 4 , 323 101 , 590
To accept CBA expansion funds .
2 . General Fund
Appropriation :
Health-Animal Control $259 , 372 $16 , 330 $275 , 702
Source :
Contingency 50 , 000 16 , 330 33 , 670
To budget for implementation of the Animal Control Ordinance on
January 1 , 1988 .
Approved this 15 day of December , 1987 .
ORANGE COUNTY 5
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action A en
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: DECEMBER 15, 1987
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR USER FEE ASSESSMENT
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: KEN CHAVIOUS
X490
PROPOSAL
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To review proposal presented by David M. Griffith and
Associates, LTD to conduct a user fee assessment for Orange
County.
BACKGROUND: Funds were appropriated in the 1987-88 budget to conduct the
user fee assessment. Although this is a separate document, it
can be done in concert with the Indirect cost plan. Therefore
it is recommended that David M. Griffith and Associates be
authorized to propose the User Fee Assessment for a total of
$2,500.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Accept proposal as presented by David M. Griffith and
Associates and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf
of the Board.
016
DAVID M. GRIFFITH AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
PROFESSIONAL 1100 LOGGER COURT,SERVICES SUITE TO 0-TH100 E PUBLIC SECTOR
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609(919)876-8042
December 9, 1987
Mr. Ken Chavious
Orange County Finance Director
Courthouse, 106 Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mr. Chavious:
David M. Griffith and Associates is pleased to have
this opportunity to submit a proposal to conduct a user fee
assessment to Orange County. This assessment is a broad overview
of those services which the County provides that benefit a
certain portion of the population. These services can and should
be supported by user fees rather than the ad valorem tax.
In North Carolina, city and
y county governments are
being forced to adopt a new approach to the delivery of
traditional services. This approach entails the explicit
consideration of the full cost of service delivery in light of
revenues generated by user fees and/or government subsidies.
This new approach resulted primarily from the revenue
shortfall experienced during the recession of the early 1980 's
and the more recent loss of federal revenue sharing funds. The
predominant effect of this condition is the necessity for local
dmg 017
2
government to take a harder look at the determination of service
costs.
It is against this backdrop that DMG was asked to
review the existing charges for providing services, and to
identify portential new areas of revenue for Orange County.
In this assessment, DMG will review the costs and
charges for services Orange County currently charges individuals
and other governmental agencies in order to ascertain if these
charges reflect full and current costs of providing the services.
It has been our experience that most localities and organizations
such as yours only include direct attributable costs in
calculating charges, and normally do not recover central service
and departmental overhead. In the past two years, we have
completed full studies or assessments in Davidson, Brunswick,
Wayne, Durham and Iredell Counties; the City of Rock Hill and
Charleston County in South Carolina; the cities of Jacksonville
and Gainesville, Florida; and the Florida counties of Palm Beach,
Lee, Alachua and Orange. In all cases the potential or real
recoveries have been significant. For example, in Iredell County .
over $900, 000 of additional revenue was identified and
approximately one half of the fees have been implemented to date.
018
ding3
In the assessment, the following objectives will be
covered:
(a) Review of current fees for services.
(b) Identify potential new areas for fees for
services.
(c) Estimate potential revenue increases available.
(d) Recommend a plan of action to increase revenue as
appropriate.
We will provide a written report which will indicate
the estimated potential increased revenues based on this macro-
review of user fees and related charges. It is anticipated that
we would complete the field work in five to seven days. The
completion of the engagement, to include the writing of the
report and a presentation, would be finalized within twenty
workdays. Our fee for this limited engagement would be $2,500,
to include all expenses.
As previously stated, many local governments are
viewing user charges as another important method of raising
revenues without unfavorably impacting services or increasing ad
ding019
4
valorem taxes. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to
work with you on this important project.
Very truly yours,
Tim McKinnie
State Manager
TMcK:js
Accepted:
Date:
020
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action A nda
Item No./
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: DECEMBER 15, 1987
SUBJECT: BY-LAWS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S
BY-LAWS
OFFICE,X501
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To consider approving by-laws for the Environmental Affairs
Board.
BACKGROUND: The attached by-laws were approved by the Environmental
Affairs Board at their December 3, 1987 regular meeting.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Approve by-laws for the Environmental Affairs Board.
021 BY LAWS OF ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD
ARTICLE I
PURPOSE The purpose of this Board is to meet monthly to review,
analyze and recommend to the Orange County Commissioners any
action on Environmental problems of the County.
ARTICLE II
MEETINGS This Board shall meet on the first (1st) Thursday of each
month and have called meetings when necessary.
ARTICLE III
MEMBERSHIP
Section 1 This Board shall consist of fifteen (15) members appointed
by the County Commissioners.
Section 2 Each year the Board shall elect it's Chairman.
Section 3 Each member shall be appointed to serve a three (3) year
term.
Section 4 Five (5) senior members shall rotate off each year.
Section 5 The Commissioners may appoint a member to succeed him or
herself.
ARTICLE IV
COMMITTEES
Section 1 The Board shall consist of four (4) Committees.
A. Hazardous Material
B. Natural Resources
C. Solid Waste
D. Water
Section 2 Each committee shall have no less than three (3) members.
Section 3 Any other matters not related to these committees shall be
disposed of by the full Board.
ARTICLE V
PAID STAFF This Board may hire a part-time Secretary.
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD
BY-LAWS 022
continued
ARTICLE VI
Section 1 Voting - shall be simple majority of members present.
Section 2. Three consecutive meetings missed will generate a letter.
Section 3 By Laws may be amended by simple majority of those present.
ORA NG E COUNTY 023
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date Decempgr 15 . 1987
Action nda
Item
SUBJECT: ADDITION OF STREET "A" AND STREET "B" IN THE COUNCILVILLE
COMMUNITY TO THE STATE-MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X_ No
ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Letter of J . M. Mills to County Manager
Secondary Road Addition Investigation Report
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE : Consideration of a petition from NCDOT for approval of the
addition of Street "A" and Street "B" in the Councilville
community to the State-maintained Secondary Road System.
BACKGROUND : The N. C. Department of Transportation has submitted a
petition for the addition of Streets "A" and "B" to the
Board of Commissioners for review.
The Board ' s decision will be forwarded to the N. C. Board of
Transportation for their deliberation on acceptance of the
road to the State-maintained Secondary Road System.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the addition of
Street "A" and Street "B" in the Councilville community to
the State-maintained Secondary Road System.
d 'AA"''' .,.,..., , , .
024 .�� a�.. -._ ._ • , ri • -
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Graham, NC 27253-0766
JAMES G. MARTIN November 23, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Orange County
Mr. Albert Kittrell, Interim County Manager
Orange County
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
•
Subject: Petition for Addition - Street "A" and
Street "B" in Councilville Community
Development
Dear Mr. Kittrell:
Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition In-
vestigation Report, for Street "A" and Street "B" in Council-
ville Community Development.
This is being forwarded to you for review by your
Board of Commissioners.
Yours very truly,
11111(IF er-- --2.... ..°
M. Mills, P. E.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
/jbh
Atta.
cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins
An Eon'Onnortnnity/Affirmpti„a Actin^Frnninvn
NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 026
SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT
County Orange Co. File No. Date
Township Chapel Hill Div. File No.
Local Name Street "A" and Street "B" Subdivision Name Co ncilville Community
"A" - 0.32
Length "j " - 0.44 _ Width 18' Type I-1 Condition Good
Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such
streets? Tes Recorded 02-04-67 Book 46 Page 179, 180, 18], 182, 183,and 184
Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? No
Number of homes having entrances into road "A" - 10 and "B" - 1X
Other uses having entrances into roadOne (11 Church at corner of Street "A" and "B"
Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dedicated
If not, why?
Is petition (SR-1) attached? Yes
Is the County Commissioners' Approval SR-2) attached?
If not, why?
Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements?
Yes
If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance
condition under Remarks and Recommendations.
Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the
Planning Department? Yes
Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $----
Grade, drain, stabilize $ , Drainage $ Other $
The Councilville Coffimsnity Deve agate'
ilment was constructed under a
Remarks and Recommendations Grant with the Department of Natural Resources and unity
Development. The roads were constructed to our minim supervision construction standards
and meets our minimum requirements. Recommend addition.
Reviewed and approved
Board of Transportation Member
Reviewed and approved J. w. T atkinA J.
Mills, P. E.
DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER
(Do not write in this space -
For use of Secondary Roads Dept.)
Petition No.
(Do not write in this space -
For use of Planning Dept.)
Form SR-4 (7-77)
f .- mow,... . 3 I. __- _
'--- - _ n
Br
.rte 11! 1!4. I
111
MI
Q 2 6 '' • Ed
■
•
an
4. G -:'.'fj . ...--.
1!H ,
LW
y.- - au.i,0,,m, int
Mme I
• 1 ik\ 1 ri,, 7..."---------N.,,,,
A � �\71.17 B
N. D tii
IIIIIIIIIIF imi .- 2`
lID SS
JIM 'al
q Mk
illilitc„\\I
} �I „L
I Mt nu
lial
I .0 MI .11
Illiiiii.,
r
mon 'ism no nT 7
•
le: IMO
Mt
00
ns
;
X'11I lip
027
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action A ends
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.
Meeting Date: DECEMBER 15, 1987
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY; PROCEDURES
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S
NONE OFFICE,X501
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To receive information from Mr. Tom McDowell, Denco and
Associates, P.A. and Mr. Bruce Matthews, N.C. Department of
Transportation, Manager of Airport Development regarding
procedures necessary to make application for funding of
feasibility study.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Board request on November 17, a list of airport
consultants was requested from Bruce Matthews of NC Department
of Transportation. Following consultation with Mr. Pearson
Stewart, Chairman of the Airport Issues Task Force, Mr. Tom
McDowell was contacted regarding the preparation of the
application necessary to receive State aid to fund the Airport
Feasibility study.
Since the procedure required to make application is more
extensive than was anticipated, Mr. McDowell and Mr. Matthews
were requested to be present at the meeting and to provide
information regarding the application process and required
prerequisites.
McDenco and Associates has quoted a cost for application pre-
paratory work at $60. 00 per hour for consultant time, $35. 00
per hour for technician time, with a not to exceed figure of
$6, 000 through June 30, 1988. The consultant has further
agree to bill the County after funds are appropriated in July,
1988.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Approve the designation of McDenco and Associates, P.A. as the
consultant to prepare preliminary work for application submis-
sion; to authorize County staff to work with McDenco to deter-
mine the scope of work for the Airport Management Consultant
and bring forward a contract for Board consideration; and to
authorize staff to work with McDenco to gather the data requi-
site to application submission.
028
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Alga
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: DECEMBER 15, 1987
SUBJECT: HOUSE NUMBERING
DEPARTMENT: MANAGER'S OFFICE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To receive additional information on the assignment of house
numbers.
BACKGROUND: On September 8, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the
proposed assignment of house numbers on Rural Route 2,
including Hideaway Estates Subdivision. At the October 20,
1987 regular meeting several residents from the community and
members of the Board voiced concern about the method used for
the assignment of numbers.
On November 17, 1987 Commissioner Halkiotis requested a
presentation from Roscoe Reeves, Land Records Supervisor,
explaining the importance and additional clarification of the
house numbering project.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information.
ORANGE COUNTY Action 2Ag da
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
MEETING DATE December 15, 1987
Subject: APPOINTMENTS
Department: BOARD OF COI+ ISSIONERS I Public Rearing: Yes % no
l
1
Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe
Under Separate Cover
-Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1501,
227-0231
PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards.
The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of
securing candidates for consideration of appointment.
B-4 - COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING -1 vacancy.
8-20 - HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - 15 resumes have been received and 2 recommendations.
C-7 - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 1 vacancy for an alternate.
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD - 1 vacancy (Tim Hubbard) A recommendation has been received.
BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENTS
HSAC - Shirley Marshall (replacing John Hartwell )
County Advisory Board on Aging - John Hartwell (replacing Shirley Marshall )
RECOMMENDATION:
As the Board decides.
DAVID M. GRHANDAOCA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICIFFITES TO THE PUBLIC SS SECTOR ITES, LTD.
1100 LOGGER COURT, SUITE D-100
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609(919)876-8042
December 9, 1987
Mr. Ken Chavious
Orange County Finance Director
Courthouse, 106 Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mr. Chavious:
David M. Griffith and Associates is pleased to have
this opportunity to submit a proposal to conduct a user fee
assessment to Orange County. This assessment is a broad overview
of those services which the County provides that benefit a
certain portion of the population. These services can and should
be supported by user fees rather than the ad valorem tax.
In North Carolina, city and county governments are
being forced to adopt a new approach to the delivery of
traditional services. This approach entails the explicit
consideration of the full cost of service delivery in light of
revenues generated by user fees and/or government subsidies.
This new approach resulted primarily from the revenue
shortfall experienced during the recession of the early 1980 's
and the more recent loss of federal revenue sharing funds. The
predominant effect of this condition is the necessity for local
-
dmq 2
government to take a harder look at the determination of service
costs.
It is against this backdrop that DMG was asked to
review the existing charges for providing services, and to
identify portential new areas of revenue for Orange County.
In this assessment, DMG will review the costs and
charges for services Orange County currently charges individuals
and other governmental agencies in order to ascertain if these
charges reflect full and current costs of providing the services.
It has been our experience that most localities and organizations
such as yours only include direct attributable costs in
calculating charges, and normally do not recover central service
and departmental overhead. In the past two years, we have
completed full studies or assessments in Davidson, Brunswick,
Wayne, Durham and Iredell Counties; the City of Rock Hill and
Charleston County in South Carolina; the cities of Jacksonville
and Gainesville, Florida; and the Florida counties of Palm Beach,
Lee, Alachua and Orange. In all cases the potential or real
recoveries have been significant. For example, in Iredell County
over $900, 000 of additional revenue was identified and
approximately one half of the fees have been implemented to date.
dmq3
In the assessment, the following objectives will be
covered:
(a) Review of current fees for services.
(b) Identify potential new areas for fees for
services.
(c) Estimate potential revenue increases available.
(d) Recommend a plan of action to increase revenue as
appropriate.
We will provide a written report which will indicate
the estimated potential increased revenues based on this macro-
review of user fees and related charges. It is anticipated that
we would complete the field work in five to seven days. The
completion of the engagement, to include the writing of the
report and a presentation, would be finalized within twenty
workdays. Our fee for this limited engagement would be $2,500,
to include all expenses.
As previously stated, many local governments are
viewing user charges as another important method of raising
revenues without unfavorably impacting services or increasing ad
dmq
4
valorem taxes. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to
work with you on this important project.
Very truly yours,
Tim McKinnie
State Manager
TMcK:js
Accepted: _ 6.44„L g eta4G4L--
4'
Date: December 15, 1987
Al/J 7Ve �, -�s-- 77
r
ORANGE C O U N T Y
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Shirl Marshall, Chair
FROM: Assistant County Manager
SUBJECT: Additional Agenda Item
DATE: December 14, 1987
In our telephone conversation Friday we were going to
add an item to the agenda for decision concerning the pro-
posed reclassification of the watersheds of University Lake
and Cane Creek Reservoir from WSIII to WSI.
At that time the December 15 agenda was in the process
of being printed and this item could not be added. We have
enclosed the information from OWASA for your consideration to
add to the agenda Tuesday night.
Upon endorsement of support for the reclassification
Dr. Dave Moreau will be glad to convey this information at
the public hearing December 16 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Carrboro
Town Hall.
6.449
William T. Laws
WTL/srs
cc: Board Members
Interim County Manager
Vtlerk to the Commissioners
Enclosure
- Orange Water and Sewer Authority xT8
400
P.O.JonBox 3es 66 Ferry Road
(.1!i!:1 E
, Carrboro, NC 27510
(919) 968421
PEPORPANOM
TO: CQ SA Board of Directors
FROM: Patrick Davis
DATE: December 1, 1987 .
SUBJECT: Public Bearing on Proposed Reclassification of University Lake
and Cane Creek Reservoir Watersheds From W5-III to WS-I
•
Background:
- The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted revised
water supply classification rules effective February 1, 1986. These rules
provide a greater level of distinction between relatively undeveloped,
protected water supply watersheds (`WS-I' watersheds) and more developed
water supply watersheds ("WS-III' and "W5-II' watersheds).
To be classified as WS-I, a watershed must be predominantly forested and .
undeveloped and not have any point source wastewater discharges. WS-II ----
-watersheds can be moderately developed, but have only domestic discharges
:. and non-process cooling water discharges. Local watershed protection
measures must be in place for watersheds to be designated as WS-I or WS-II.
There are no categorical restrictions on point source wastewater discharges
within WS •III watersheds, which would include more intensively developed
watersheds, such as B. Everett Jordan Lake.
Upon adoption of the revised rules, the State automatically classified
University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds as WS-III. In November,
1985 OWASA requested that the DC reclassify the University Lake and Cane
Creek Reservoir water supply watersheds from WS-III to WS-I. Background
information and a copy of the Board of Directors' resolution relative to
. this subject are attached for your information.
The EMC has scheduled a public hearing on the requested reclassification of-
the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds. - The hearing will
- be held on December 16, 1987 at 7:30 p.m., in the Carrboro Town Ball.
- Reoues ation: •• . __. ..- ..._ - - -
• Attached for your review and comment is a draft statement concerning this
proposed action. If you concur, this statement (or revised version) will be
presented at the EMC public hearing.
Q. _ .__.
. _ . . ._ _
Patrick Davis
wP
. Acting Executive Director
Attachments - -
An Equal Opportunity Employer
• _ _ . . DRAFT'-
%TATER AND SEWER AumoRrzy
mamma cm PFCIPOSED RECLASSIFICATICN OF UNIVEFSrlY LAKE AND
CANE CREEK RESERVOXR F i6-III TO IG-X
Presented By Patrick Davis, Acting Executive Director, GWASA
at E7 C's December 16, 1987 Public Hearing at Carrboro Town Hall
•
I am Patrick Davis, Acting Executive Director of Orange Water and Sewer
Authority (C +SSA) . CESA is the organization responsible for providing the
Chapel Hill - Carrboro community and surrounding area with a safe, high
quality drinking water supply. In November, 1985 OWASA requested the water
supply reclassifications which are under consideration by the State. We are
very glad that the State is now nearing a decision on our request. The
Environmental management Commission's proposal to reclassify the University
Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds from WS-III to WS-I is an -
important, progressive step in State and local efforts to protect local
water supplies. _ ,
M SA must operate in compliance with existing drinking water standards. We
must also be prepared to meet the increasingly stringent treatment
requirements and standards which have been proposed or are under
consideration by Federal and State public health agencies. Unfortunately, •• -
our society's capability to generate water pollutants exceeds our capability
to control those contaminants. Conventional water treatment technology
cannot remove all of the pollutants potentially present in drinking water
supplies. _
The water treatment system is, and will continue to be, our community's last
line of defense against these pollutants.. . Therefore, protection of the
public water supply and the public health must begin with the selection of
the highest quality source of water. Continued maintenance of high quality
water sources is also greatly dependent upon efforts to protect the supply
from point and nonpoint source pollution. . _
Although GWASA is responsible for the quality of drinking water provided to
its customers, it does not have authority to control land development
activities within local water_supply watersheds: State and local ..-:
governments are depended upon to implement water supply protection programs.
Our community has been very fortunate in that each of the local governments
with planning and zoning authority in local water supply watersheds
recognize the need for, and have implemented, water supply protection
requirements. Although additional controls would be beneficial and should
continue to be considered, the measures already in place provide a good-
foundation for a long-term watershed protection program. .. .
The Town of Carrboro, Orange County and Chatham County have all adopted
water quality protection measures applicable to the University Lake
watershed. , Orange County and Alamance County have adopted measures for the
Cane Creek Reservoir watershed. . It is our understanding that all of these
measures meet or exceed the State-established requirements for local water
quality protection programs within WS-I watersheds.
.. ;:Wary. .�• p..•.r •
The university Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds are predominantly
-. undeveloped and forested in nature. Water quality is very good and there
are no point source pollution discharges within either watershed. The
reclassification of these watersheds to WS-I will provide an increased level
of protection to these long-term water sources and further support the
area's efforts to maintain the quality of drinking water supplies.
Locally, public concern for protection of water supplies has increased due
to recent changes in drinking water standards,- new-information on health
effects of water pollutants, and announcements of plans for development
projects within local water supply watersheds. OWPSA recently awarded a
t _ contract for completion of a comprehensive study of University Lake and its
watershed area. This study, which is being undertaken solely with OWASA
- funds, will assist local governments in evaluating the effectiveness-of
alternative water quality protection measures and in determining what levels
of development are appropriate for the watershed. Like the reclassification
- r request under discussion tonight, the local watershed study project has
received the endorsement of the surrounding local governments. The study
•= should provide a further basis for refinement of local water supply
protection programs. Its findings may be of interest and benefit to the
State.
From these efforts, it is clear that our community and the surrounding
- -region- are very concerned about protection of all-drinking water supplies
X,,", and is committed to _these efforts. OWASA is very appreciative of the
• -` cooperation and commitment of the local governments of Carrboro, Chapel
Bill, Orange County, Chatham County and Alamance County in watershed
protection.efforts. The continuing concern of the Environmental Management
_ ' Commission and Division of Environmental Management relative to protection
_ . . of public drinking water supplies and adoption of more protective water
supply classification standards is also strongly supported by M SA. We
also appreciate the State's continuing willingness to consider proposals for
additional State-mandated water quality protection measures for WS-I, WS-II
or WS-III watersheds. One such area of concern is the need for increased
standards and controls applicable to the design, construction, and long-term
operation and maintenance of individual and cluster subsurface wastewater
disposal systems in protected watershed areas.
Thank you very much for your consideration of the request for
-reclassification of University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds from
WS-III to WS-I. It is my understanding that the resolution previously
adopted by the OWASA Board of Directors, and the related correspondence
dated November 8, 1985 and November 27, 1985 from Everett Billingsley to the -
Division of Environmental Management, will be included in the record of this
public hearing. -
w
DRAFT
Patrick Davis
Acting Executive Director
�:. .
11 xeraecrods:rdiemegiaar3014 Tie tat
NOTICE or PUBLIC WARING .CLASSIFY Poniards or DAKOTA.
THE CAPE RAH RIVER Oared Ilit
A A1AMANCT{CUL)!Y!� Ceram M,
AM
home is Imre*gems d a emetic Nig
bairn(Isha bad bowhead
- a Comae Deportment at lied ral NOTICE Itosoarces sad Comma* Do.
• . s•iapsam behalf f vh
Mr•ementai Maaag meet Cam-
.
r Wallas ( IC) e+aeeraieg the lath•r the
a adpleaI1an at stream daadOnr Chatham Ca
' floor is Moos: Yee F
. • ;. PURPOSE:ToreeissabyCafb4 ab Maas.f.
•
i Mir emirs it the Cape Pear ��i
t Cass Ctsrk tram Its execs(hr u.alvalltner
opmeam ts@rtarMs) lkra 2)314,ac
Is a Pia Lf mbar eon ai N.C. •t M+7•lta¢
E .•M (Case Creek Ba ervoir
)from Car tom r 5m Rio b
k.
1la'*sa�k tram sauce(ha•
a4 hddehte
I en +am trihetarhe) 1* make
_ r ur maw,
to dam ream CBI 2 the t
'Mischance a,Al pr• ete farther OR-
paelaet err of their crater am plies
tram point mod saopoint solitaire
warder.?base classification
-
changer are preceded r be plod
- _ hr U NCAC 2B .8111(c) sad in- E.LE
• eluded in the 8ehedn)e et Masi-
locations sad woo=Quality t;tao• p AnDrIleY1 at
darks tar the Cape Year River
dor this ddapdtlntran is June 11. Nb'®�
•
: 1
]sss
`
1 Daiditme:D•eernharlit.11e7 at
I 7:io p• PUBLIC III
; — Location:Carrhae Town Hall, TBANSPOI I
Town of Carrtoee,701 Wad Main PROWL
• .,; Sued,Carrhr:wo,North Carolina HAW:
1 11Sto.
Cbmmaot Peedecu e:Ail par- • : Tba—Erase
• ;. . 1 sons late egad in this matter are Boded bribe
invited to attend. Comm•ats, • hadapublic1
_.... - ..•,,.:. . . . a. . statements.data and other in- Dannaber 10.
•
i' loematipip laRy admitted m receive visa!•
_ - _ : -. thirty days alter Wearing,or within Panatela ads+writhig prior
or may he prevented crafty at tbe -Ore Urban W
a . hearing.Oral stateneetee may be Ansa . trait
i - limbed at the discretion of the pba �a Grade
teem ofBder.6remittal et writ- The public he
. .... i - ten copies/Moral statamecesisen- to Board ac
coreratsd. Tara Hall,X
. . _ _... Authority:ity: H.C.G3.143-214.1 srhicbts stem
r ' Amendments to the Schedule of pasoes.
• droned and Water Quality lntormatic
• -' _ • Standards tort*Cape Fe:waiver IsoRattt can I
- • Bum hlTltielSH.C. CarrharoPlai
i• Admmgtrmfrm trade 2B X11. Tara Ball.a
I .. information: Farther ceplaaa- )aarrmmt at
t tined and details or the peepaeed m the pregra
- -
I _ elsaare In strum classfficebnim bums=this
I easy hebhtamed by wiling area 1. le17.and Jeri
big:Bob 1ie�an.Division of Ea- by eallimg sr I
-. .. - - _.. *tr°°emotaf Maaageaamt.P.O. dgermxst_
lax 2 7•Itakelgh North CiMi ie This it the C
27C]1 iris)7236061. 1!7-
• October 23.,UV.
R Paid Mbar,&recu r flu
_ - - -v H•rember U.Her November U.
•
�$PF:ctat.WL:E
ComeC .
4 Getli!
Our Fabulous
6 ox.-Sirloin-Steak_Di
- .•.=•r
.4 r• .-
„,.....eit:.01 ' "IP .I.•.
i
-7"--:".\ Orange Water and Sewer Authority
406 Jones Ferry Road
[OWASA 1 P.O. Box 366
. Carrboro, NC 27510
(919) 968-4421
November 27, 1985
Mr. I. Paul Wilma
Director
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
-
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, HC 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Wilms:
I appreciate the explanations of the implementation process for the new water
supply classifications which you provided in your November 19, 1985 letter, and
those Which Bill Lreutzberger had furnished earlier.
- It appears that the nondegradation objectives in formDnlailon of the new
classifications can be net for University Lake . and Cane Creek Reservoir by
following the petitioning for upgrade as outlined in your letter. The )oaxd o
Directors of Orange Water and -Sever Authority adopted a resolution an November"
20, 1985, copy attached, formally requesting the North Carolina Environmental
• ?Management Commission to reclassify the University Late and the Cane Creep
watersheds that are now classified A.-II to the new classifcation of WS-I promptly
upon adoption of the new watershed classifications. -
Please initiate reclassification proceedings. With
1985, I furnished to Mr. Bob Holman documentation of v
-the of
development
controls an these watersheds. Additional information will be provided as needed.
Let me know what we can do to facilitate this reclassification process.
Very y yours, -
Everett Billingsley
Executive Director
•
mar
Enc.
•
cc: (v/enc.) Mr. James P. Stamey, Chief
Environmental Health Section
North Carolina Department of Haman Resources
(v/enc.) Mr. Wallace E. Venrick
Regional Engineer
State Division of Health Services
O>JASA Board of Directors
Ronald Williamson
An Equal Opportunity Employer
AND CANE CREEL UESELVOIL WATERSHEDS nom L-I I -TO WS-1- -
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes - ..
to adopt new improved description classifications for water supply watersheds
to provide' more appropriate protection for surface water supplies used as a
raw water source for drinking water; and
WEEBMAS, the University Lake watershed and the Cane Creek Reservoir
watershed that are now classified A-II appear to meet the requirements for the
VS-I classification of the proposed designation; and
WHEREAS, the reclassification of the University Lake watershed and the
Cane Creek Reservoir watershed to VS-I will be to the benefit of the health
and welfare of the present and future customers dependent upon these water ..
supply sources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority
petitions the North Carolina Environmental Management Comeissian to reclassify
the University Lake and the Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds- that are now
classified: A-II to the new classification of VS-1 promptly upon adoption of
the new watershed classifications."
2. That the Executive Director of Orange Water and Sewer Authority is
authorized and directed to file such necessary applications, furnish the .- -
appropriate' information, and take such other action as needed to support the
-
consummation of the reclassification requests.
- 3. Tbat copies of this resolution be forwarded to the County of Orange, ,
County of Chatbae, Town of Carrbaro,• and Town of Chapel Sill along with a-
request request of support for this reclassification of the watersheds.
Adopted this 20th day of November, 1985.
P/-
Edward N. Bann, Jr., i
•
.ST:
V. L. Aderbolt, Jr.
Secretary-Treasurer -
•
•
•
•
DRAFT-FOR REVIEW ONLY
•
•
•
•
GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING A PROTECTIVE
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
North Carolina Department cf
Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
Water Duality Section
JULY, 1967
•
This document has been approved
R. Paul Wilms
Director
•
•
Table of Contents
Page
Purpose 1
- WS Classification 1 .
Initial Changes 1
Actions Needed 2
Point Source Strategy 2
Nonpoint Source Strategy 4
WS-I Program Outline 7
WS-II Program Outline 6
WS-III Program Outline .9
Legal Mechanisms 10
Further Information 10
•
•
•
•
y .
PURPOSE
The purpose of the water supply protection program is to
provide an opportunity for communities to work together with the
state in providing enhanced protection for their water supply
from pollution sources. If local governments develop a watershed
management program that controls pollutants from nonpoint sources
in their particular watershed , the state will control the number
and type of point sources allowed in the watershed. Combining
the efforts of these governing bodies should provide and maintain
a desirable level of watershed protection.
WS CLASSIFICATION
New water supply classifications became effective February
1 , 1986 and have three classes (WS-I , WS-II and WS-III ) . These
classes are defined according to the amount and types of permit-
ted point source discharges as well as a requirement to control
nonpoint sources of pollution. Class WS-I watersheds must have no
point source discharges. Domestic-discharges ( including schools
and individual homes) and approved non-process (cooling) water- -
discharges are allowed in Class WS-II watersheds. In addition, _
WS-I and WS-lI watersheds must have local land use management -
programs to protect water supplies from nonpoint sources
pollution. All nonpoint source control programs must be approved
by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) as part of
public proceedings to reclassify the water body.
Class WS-III waters are stream segments with no categorical
restrictions on point source discharges in the watersheds. Local
nonpoint source control programs are not required; however , in
reclassification proceedings for WS-III waters, a detailed
evaluation- of point sources including toxic substances is
conducted. While not required, the implementation of a nonpoint
source control program for portions of the watershed, particular-_
ly near the water supply intake or in rapidly developing areas,
is highly recommended.
• INITIAL CHANGES
All waters previously classified as A-I became Class WS-I
when the water supply classes were revised. At present, these
waters are considered to have a nonpoint source management
program which requires the watershed to remain undisturbed and _
uninhabited (since that was the requirement for Class A-I
waters) . All other waters previously classified as A-II became
Class WS-III . Many of these waters may qualify for either the
WS-I or WS-II classification. Reclassification of WS-III waters
to a more protective class is initiated on the request of a local
water authority followed by a detailed watershed evaluation by
DEM and the development of a watershed protection program by
local government . Once the official resolution is received from
the local governing body, any new application for a NPDES permit
(point source discharge) in a proposed WE-I or WS-II watershed
will be closely evaluated and may not be acted on until the
reclassification procedure is complete.
ACTIONS NEEDED
There are five main actions local government must take in
order for the state to proceed with the local government 's
request. These actions include: -
1 . collecting water supply information,
2. determining the most appropriate WS classification-based
on state guidelines,
• 3. . develQping control, strategies, .
4. adopting and implementing control strategies, and
5. submitting a proposed protection package to the EMC. '
In collecting water supply information, a community must
define its actual water supply needs over a reasonable planning
period , determine all potential water supply sources and describe
• the, selected watershed in detail . The next action is to determine
the appropriate. "WS" classification. This may require assistance
by DEM or other state agencies with specific data needs,
- • .. evaluation of the -data- base by the state, and state
- recommendations for classification of the watershed. The third
action (develop control strategies) includes specific strategies
for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution. The fourth action
is adoption/implementation of these strategies by local
government and adjoining jurisdictions within the watershed. The
final local government action is to submit the watershed
management package to the EMC for its preliminary assessment.
• The state will take two actions after the final local
watershed protection plan is submitted to DEM and the EMC. First ,
public hearing(s) will be held in the vicinity of the water
supply to provide the EMC with oral and written comments from the
public about the proposed water supply classification. After all -
comments are summarized in the proceeding report, the hearing
officer will review the document and any other related material .
Upon completion of the review, the hearing. .officer will submit
• the local water supply protection plan and the reclassification
action along with his or her recommendation to the EMC for
appropriate action. Table 1 summarizes the state and local
actions needed.
-POINT -SOURCE- STRATEGY - - .•
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) already has a
well established point source program directly tied to the
federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .
This program regulates discharges by permitting , monitoring, and
reducing pollutants from entering North Carolina 's surface
waters. By preventing or limiting the number and type of
discharger into WS-I and WS--II watersheds the potential
pollutants that are associated with these sources will be greatly
reduced or eliminated from a water supply watershed . Large
WS-III water45„h,eds are p i n
•
Table 1
Actions Needed by Local and State Government
I . Local Government Actions
A. Collect Water Supply Information
1 . Define water needs (projected volume over time) 1
2. Determine potential water supply sources ( location &
yield-) 1 - - -3. Define specific watershed with respect to:
a ) land use °
b ) point sources °
c ) nonpoint sources °-`.
d ) water quality°
B. Determine Appropriate WS Classification°
1 . State will provide assistance with specific
- watershed data needs if necessary
2. Evaluate baseline data
-- - -- 3. Recommend classification (WS-I , WS--II , WS-III )
C. Develop Control Strategies
1 . Point sources°
2. Non-point sources='-`
D. Adopt and Implement Control Strategies
Adopt necessary regulations and ordinances to control
the sources of nonpoint source pollution °.°
E. Submit Proposed Classification Package to the Environmental
Management Commission for Preliminary Assessment
II . - State Actions
•
A." Provide guidance and technical assistance
B. Hold public hearing (s)
- - C. - Present final package to Environmental Management
Commission for Appropriate Action
1 . Cooperation with Division of Water Resources
2.-. Cooperation with Division of Community Assistance
3. . Cooperation with Division of Environmental Management
4 . Cooperation with Divisions of Soil and Water
Conservation, Land Resources, Health Services, and
- . Forest Resources
sources. Thorough investigations have already been completed on
two Piedmont reservoirs documenting both point and nonpoint
sources of toxicants with recommendations for future DEM action.
Other WS-III watersheds will also be investigated in the future
to document potential water quality problems.
Within a Water Supply (W5) watershed much greater scrutiny
will be placed on any point source discharger . Close attention
will be paid to compliance records, ambient data, bioassay
analysis benthi-c macroinvertebrate evaluation, facility age and
possible violations. In some cases, communities are actively
. trying to .remove- point. source dischargers from .their water supply .
watershed. Methods have included connecting the facility to a
sewer line; converting the discharger over to a nondischarging
land application system; or constructing a large nondischarging
subsurface system. These strategies should also greatly reduce
the risk of contamination from point source dischargers.
NONPOINT SOURCE STRATEGY _
The main strategy of the program is to control point and
nonpoint sources of pollution today and into the future. .-
Controlling these sources of pollution should reduce the risk of
contamination to a surface water -supply. - •-
Local governments within a water supply watershed need to
develop their own nonpoint source control program. All programs
should . address methods of controlling surface water runoff from
new development . The statewide program guidelines only deals
with surface water pollution sources; however , the Division of
Health Services in the Department of Human Resources and DEM's
groundwater section already have regulations addressing
subsurface water pollution sources.
DEM guidelines address two portions 'of a watershed including
the critical area and remainder of the watershed (Figure 1 ) . The
critical area, defined as the area adjacent to the reservoir or
water intake location, needs the greatest amount of protection.
With increased impervious surfaces comes greater runoff and
typically land uses having the greatest impervious surfaces
(commercial and industrial sites) have a much higher potential of
toxic pollutants leaving the site with stormwater runoff. This
area should extend from 1/2 to 1 mile from the reservoir 's high
- water-mark or intake point and- depends on the watershed, size.- A -
water .supply watershed equal to or greater than 100 square miles
would require a 1 mile critical area while watersheds less than
100 square miles would generally only require a 1/2 mile critical
area. Control measures within the critical area should include:
1 ) density limits on new development of b% impervious surface or
1 dwelling/2 -acres with septic tanks only; 2)- natural vegetative
buffers adjacent (both sides) to all perennial tributaries
flowing to the reservoir or direct intake ranging in width from
50 to 150 feet depending on slope, soil , and land-use
characteristics and 3) no commercial or industrial areas within
FIGURE 1 i
SURFACE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED
(guideline concept)
Remainder to
Ridgeline
watershed
outside critical (boundary of
area ' watershed )
1/2 to 1 mile
critical area '
surrounding reservoir
or water intake point `
Reservoir
Ws.
i __ i '
i
I _
9
itical area. Note. One method to determine the buffer size
take the minimum 50 foot buffer and add 4 times the slope
100 (for further details of this method refer to Orange
- Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, see
t person listed in Appendix D.
e critical area concept evolved from the idea that the .
st water quality protection is needed in this area. A zone
ing from 1/2 to 1 mile from the reservoir 's high water mark
ake point was originally defined as the time needed for
ncy personnel to respond to a spill and contain it . This
as converted into distance water. would. travel in the . i
aries over this time period . Therefore, the average
=e traveled by the water courses during this period was
from the reservoir 's backwaters upstream to a certain
The Falls of Neuse and B. Everett Jordan Reservoirs were
ed for this purpose and the average distance upstream was
to be approximately l mile. From this determination it was
nat water supply watersheds less than 100 square miles
. only need a 1/2 mile critical area due to their smaller
size. .
ntrol measures for the remainder of a watershed (outside of
itical. ar.ea) may include: 1 ) . density limits on new i-
oment of 12%, impervious surfaces or 1 dwelling/1 acre with
tank only or 30% impervious surfaces or 3 to 4 dwelling/1
ith sewer connections (the 30% impervious surfaces only
s to a WS-II and WS-III watershed) ; 2) natural vegetative
s adjacent (both sides) to all perennial tributaries
g to the reservoir or direct intake ranging in width from
150 feet depending on slope, soil , and land-use
ter i st i cs; 3) control of the first one-half inch of runoff
ew development if the impervious surface is greater than
Structural means of controlling the first one-half inch of
may include the use of wet detention basins. Methods for
and designing wet detention basins can be found in the EPA--
nt "Methodology for Analysis of Detention Basins for
1 of Urban Runoff Quality" , (September 1986) and the State
yland document "Feasibility and Design of Wet Ponds to
; -e Water Quality Control" , (July, 1996) [both documents are
-ble from DEM]; and 4) hazardous materials inventoried and
i n restrictions be placed on their use, storage and
ortation. _ -
_._ 4 pecific strategies for WS-I , WS-II and WS-III watersheds _
t een put together in the form of program outlines. These
les are given in Tables 2 to 4.
1
4.
1
1
.
Table 2. PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR VS-1
A. GOAL
Protect rater supplies in undeveloped watersheos fr'oe being polluted
by point and nonpoint sources and allow the watershed to repair, in
priearilti en undeveloped state.
R. APPROACH-
1. State Action - prevent any NPDES applications (point Sources) frog
being permitted in a WS-! watershed.
2. Local action - develop. implement, and enforce a Comprehensive
ronpoint source control program to reduce water pollution, fros
buaan activities within the watershed in areas such as
agriculture, coemercial L residential developsent. mining,
landfills, forestry and frog toxic ti ha:aro:`LE materials.
C. LOCAL ACTIONS
1. Entire Watershed
a) local sedimentation and erosion control prograo
b) county soil and rater plans for critical 'rosin, areas.
t) land use saprino and planning,
d) recommended land use regulations
1) For all new development control the first 1/2 inch of
- runoff (development with density greater than 1L:
impervious coverage).
2) A.SO foot minimum vegetative buffer adjacent to all
perennial tributaries (greater distances mar oe needed
depending on slope and soil type)
2' Inventor; all ha:ardous materials used and stored.
2. Critical Area - portion of katershed where water supple intake is
!noted
a) area to encoepa55 one-half or one mile from the reservoir's
free
conservation pool elevation or one mile distance up5treee
water intake site (1r2 tile if watershed is less than
100 square miles)
b) -ecoaeeade land use regulations
:) no Sewer connections except to deal with specific problem
areas; )tatted number of wall businesses
2) no cos_errial or industrial developsent
3) new developsent limited to 6% impervious coverage (i
dwelling/ 2 acres or 80,000 square foot lot size).
4) vegetative buffer around reservoir at least 100 feet and
create- depending on soil type and slope; streas or ricer
used as direct intake will have buffer 100 feet from
banks landward for a distance of I12 or 1 site upstream
(1/2 sile if watershed is less than 100 square wiles),
5) no permanent structures should be built in the vegetative `
buffer,
k) no industrial or commercial hazardous material use or
Storage,
7) special ordinances to consider - floodway, sedimentation,
unsuitable land, z oning, subdivision, nubile here, etc.
3. Special Use Previsions - New developeent not coeplyino with the
above require:ents could be allowed on a case-;,r-case basis if
special safeguards against contamination are proposed and
approved by the appropriate state authority.
, v
Table 3. PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR WS-II
A: GOAL
Protect water supplies in moderately developed watersheds fro. being
polluted by point and nonpoint sources and allow the watershed to
remain in a moderately developed state. .
A. APPROACH
1. State Action - Limit the nuaber' and type"( NPDES applications
(Point sources) to be peraitted in a WS-II watershed to doaestic
. . discharges only. Exceptions say be made by the EMC for some .
dining and nor-process industries.
2. Local Action - develop a coeprehensive nonpoint source control
orocraa to reduce water Pollution from huaan activities within
the watershed fros agriculture. commercial & residential
development, eining, landfills, forest and fros toric L hazardous
materials. Under some ctrcu.starces a water supply having a
potential WS-II rating say request a WS-I classification. This .
would require documentation of steps to be taken in rexoving any
point source (within 3 months). After one year. dacuaentatitn
. must be submitted to DEM rnich._irdicates the progress toward.. _.
resoval of these point sources.
C. LOCAL ACTIDHS (Honnoint sources)
I. Entire Watershed
a) local sedimentation and errstor control progray,
b) county. soil and water plans for criteria erosion areas,
. c) land use sapping and planning.'
d) recommended land use re5uiati3n5,
l) all new development control the first 1.1 inch of runoff
(development with density greater than 12 tnpertous
coverage)
?! 50 foot siniaus vegetative buffer adjacent to a!!
perennial tributaries :greater distances .ay be needed
. depending on slope and soil type).
3) all hazardous aaterials use and stored will be
inventoried.
2. Critical'Area - portion of watershed where water supply intake is
located. .
al area to encompass one half er one vile frri reservoirs
conservation pool elevation or one ails distance upstreas
fro, water intake (1/2 aile if watershed is less than 100
. - square miles) - - . - . . .
b) recommended land use regulations,
1) no sewer'connections except to deal with specific problem
areas; halted number of small businesses.
2) no coeaercial .or industrial development.
3) new development halted to h% iepervieus coverage (1
. welling/2 acres or'B0,000 square foot lot size),
4) vegetative buffer around reservoir at.least 100 feet and
greater depending on soil type and slope; stream or river. ._ _ . t - .
used as direct intake will have buffer 100 feet fros
banks landward for a'distance of 112 or 1 Bile upstreaa
(1/2 silo if watershed is less than 100 square Riles)
5) no permanent structure should be built in the vegetative
buffer,
6) no hazardous material use or storage,
7) special ordinances to consider - floodway, sedimentation,
unsuitable land, zoning, suodivision, mobile hose, etc.
.. Special Use Provisions hew development not complying with the
above requirements could be allowed on a case-bv-case basis if
special safeguards against contamination are proposed and approved
by the appropriate state authority.
D. STATE ACTICHS 'Point sources)
t. identify domestic Aischarger; ono their effluent characteristics
a. Review compliance and ambient water quality data related to
facility.
b. Review facility age and water quality violations.
c. Seek additional physical, chemical or biological data that say
be needed, especially toxicant and bioassay data.
2. Recommend methods to control any point source problem. `his say
__include modifying treatment procedures, installing new equipment,
upgrading an entire system, and wastewater treatment reliability
eeasures may be needed. E spi E/failure containment plan say
_also 3e,r�quired.
3. Evaluate the potential for future domestic dischargers (niter,
type, and location)...
Table 4. PP.OSRAM OUTLINE FOR l!5-jII
A US-III water supply would have the same requirements as
the old A-II classification. This classification has no
categorical restrictions on watershed development or discharges
unlike the restrictions placed on YS-I and HS-II water supplies.
However, these watersheds also need protection from sources of
point and nonpoint pollution. DEM has an ongoing program to
investigate toxic substances in large watersheds (typically
VS-III water supplies). To date, two Piedmont mater supply
sources have been evaluated. The resulting reports include
to-depth evaluations of possible toxicant sources in the
watersheds. analysis of available toxicant data from point and
nonpoint sources, and recommendations for future DEM actions to
protect these lakes from toxicants. Future studies will focus on _
other large watersheds to address similar water quality concerns.
The nonpoint source control program for a NS-III watershed
would be similar to one for a HS-II watershed and allow sewer
extensions outside the critical area. High potential for
contamination of the water supply would prevent hazardous waste
facilities from locating within the watershed. However, more
flexibility would be al:owed-for growth of urban areas if
appropriate measures are taken to plan development and control
runoff.
•
A
a
LEGAL MECHANISMS
There appear to be five legal bases that local governments
can utilize in implementing' a nonpoint source control program.
They include local board of health regulations, zoning authority,
subdivision control , soil erosion/sedimentation control , and
general ordinance-making power . All these devices have certain
jurisdictional questions that must first be answered. In the
case of the local board of health regulations, three
jurisdictional considerations can be used: 1 ) regulations that
apply throughout the county; 2) rules which govern septic tanks
can- be adopted by local boards if -their rules are as-stringent as
the Division of Health Services Regulations; and 3) local boards
of health can adopt more stringent rules in areas regulated by
the EMC if further protection of public health is required.
Zoning , subdivision and soil erosion/ sedimentation control
measures can then be used to define the types of control measures
to be incorporated .
The remaining questions deal with the legal issues related
to zoning power , subdivision control , soil erosion/sedimentation
control , and general ordinance making authority . Legal issues
associated with zoning authority include: permitting large minimum
lot sizes, prohibiting -cectain wastewater__treatment systems, .-.. Y
upstream landowners burden versus protecting downstream water users,
and requirements of private maintenance of stormwater •facilities.
Subdivision legal issues include: reducing impervious surfaces by
altering street paving and right-of-way clearing requirements and
the discretion cities have in extending water and sewer service
outside city limits. Requirements for private maintenance of
stormwater facilities would be the major legal issue in soil
erosion/sedimentation control . Finally, the general
ordinance-making authority may need to comply with jurisdictional
and procedural requirements if the ordinance resembles zoning, land
subdivision or soil erosion, and sedimentation control ordinances.
For further assistance in deciding which legal mechanism to
utilize, please contact the local NRCD Regional Office - Division
of Community Assistance or the Institute of Government in Chapel
Hill ,
FURTHER INFORMATION
-Specific information about the -different aspects of the -water -
supply protection program can be obtained in, the form of
appendices to the basic guideline document . These subjects
include definitions of water supply terms, background of new WS
classification, communities with WS protection regulations,
communities with surface water supplies, specific items for
structural and nonstructural nonpoint source control measures,
maps of WS-I , WS-II , and WS-III locations and water quality
standards that apply. Please contact Bob Holman, Coordinator ,
Water Supply Protection Program, NRCD - DEM,, P.O. Box 27687,
- Raleigh , North Carolina , 27611 or call (919) 733-50E3 to obtain
copies of this material .
p ei A=V �/I7
ALLEN SPALT
300 JAMES STREET
CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27510
H: (919) 967-3054 W: (919) 967-1886
December 15, 1987
To the Orange County Commissioners:
Chair Marshall and members of the Orange County Board
of Commissioners. My name is Allen Spalt . My family and I
live at 300 James Street in Carrboro. We have two children
in the Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools; Susan is a
long-term employee of the system.
I come tonight to ask you to give consideration to the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro district's needs for capital
improvements as detailed in the October 19, 1987. five-year
"Master Plan for School Facilities" . Total cost is about
27.5 million dollars. I understand that the Orange County
school system has requests for about $12 million . The
county also has substantial capital needs. We are concerned
that the County Commissioners may be considering a bond
package in the range of $20 million . This amount would fund
less than half of the Identified needs. That Is not enough .
As a member of the Long-Term Facilities Planning
Committee for the City Schools last year ,.,,I:Lexperienced the
difficulty of predicting future enrollment . - In fact ,
despite our best efforts, the committee significantly
under-estimated this year's enrollment . In the past the
school population has not always followed the general growth
of the area. It seems as if the schools are now- reaping the
effects of the whirlwind of recent growth over which they
have no control .
I am also aware of the difficulty of arriving at
reliable estimates for the costs of improvements. We worked
diligently last year with local and state experts to make
the proposals which form the core of the current plan . It
is a good long-term plan . The system proposes to add room
at the high school for the ninth grade, renovate the junior
highs into middle schools, and upgrade and expand the
elementary schools to accommodate anticipated growth . It is
sound educationally , capitalizes on a rare opportunity to
shift the sixth and ninth grades, and makes good use of
facilities.
The proposal is based on the best available predictions
for school needs. It takes into account the substantial
impact on capacity of the state's Basic Education Plan . It
includes almost $3 million identified for "phase II" or
CAPITAL NEEDS
PAGE 2
Joint school/community operated facilities. We can all be
pleased--we will all be surprised--if the actual costs turn
out to be less than requested.
Allow me to give you a personal perspective on the
present over-crowding. Our daughter is in the third grade
at Carrboro Elementary School . There are over 600 students
in a facility designed for 484. It is at least 25% over
capacity with two temporary classrooms. Most classes are
over the state limit of 26 (but below 29) . A couple of
additional students in the wrong grades will require
realigning virtually all the classes. Imagine how
disruptive that would be in the middle of the year. The
cafeteria and library are hopelessly overcrowded. The
Assistant Principal 's office is in a former broom closet .
One special class has Just moved from the hall to a
converted food storage area.
The physical overcrowding is not the worst . Staff and
counselors are so overwhelmed that students cannot always
get needed attention . As third grade teacher Miles Reck ,
speaking for the faculty, told the School Board last week,
it is those already at high risk for problems that are
particularly shortchanged.
Short-termwproposals to relieve the overcrowding .L ,_
include making classrooms out of the stage or the gym (but
they don't say where the gym classes will then
go) . Such
plans are born of desperation; they are penny wise and
foolish and would destroy the integrity of the building�ound
Possibilities also include moving the sixth grade to a
Junior high school .
Our son, after seven years at Carrboro, started
Phillips Junior High this year . Nominally it is not
over-full , but tell that to the seventh graders In the
middle of the day . In order to shuffle everyone through ,
they begin lunch at 10 :30AM. Our son isn' t hungry then, but
he is starving by the end of the day . Would the sixth
graders have to eat at 9:45 or LOAM? Perhaps they could
Just eat their lunch on the bus on the way to school . It is
a very serious dilemma for the School Board.
I know that you are concerned---as you should be--with
both tax rates and equity for both school systems. Citizens
of the Chapel Hill -Carrboro district have been willing to
pay higher taxes for the quality of education they want .
That is a large part of the reason why we moved Into the
district from another county. Chapel Hill -Carrboro should
not be penalized for Its extra efforts.
CAPITAL NEEDS
PAGE 3
The current imbalance in funding was not achieved over
night and should not be corrected in haste. It cannot be
done quickly without great harm to the existing schools.
The funding differential was not imposed on the county
system, the city system rather chose to move ahead faster .
It would not be equitable to make the city system now sit
and wait .
The people of the Chapel Hill district are not
masochistic; they do not support higher taxes just to feel
the pain . They do want the best possible education for
their children. I ' ll wager they will also be willing to pay
at least their fair share to help the county schools achieve
equal funding as county residents want and are willing to
participate in funding them-. It will take time , good will ,
and money , not depriving either system.
In sum, we urge you to support funding for not 40 or 60
or 80 percent of the identified needs of both systems, but
for all of them. You should propose a finance package,
including sufficient bonds, to meet the real needs. Please
don't leave us playing catch-up or left with the rows of
temporary classrooms that make some Wake County schools look
like trailer parks.
I drafted much of this letter last night in one of the
classrooms in the new multi-purpose center at Glenwood
Elementary School during a youth basketball
a fine facility, spacious and neat , with freshly pal It is
block walls and vinyl tile floors. It is not luxurious, ,,..
just a good environment for learning. You Commissioners
have responded to such specific needs before; the new
facilities have helped keep the crisis from being worse. We
need your help again system-wide and in a big way.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these
views.
Sincerely,
AM__Srp4t7
Allen Spalt
Pr
-�
/4/27-z--7°� '�� �r',i7 ` ` i•-n c
P�jJGt'2� / . 7J - 5 l7
4Z�I/ii/ o(G G 8 a •
A•AlUHtH OF I Flt StAHS FINANCIAL NF,I WORK
cowweu Jr)
BANKCR o.
COLOWELL BANKER
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
580 EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CARLOS.CA 94070
(415)593-5888
December 2, 1987
Ms. Diane Riggsbee
c/o 508-B Craig Street
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Dear Diane:
I didn't leave the property information with you because I had some
additional work to do before giving it to you. I am enclosing all
of the information that I think you will need and I hope that you will
still be able to attend the Commissioner's meeting on Monday, December
7th, 1987 at 7:30p.m. at the Old Post Office building on Franklin and
Henderson Streets. Levi Green, the gentleman who has been working with
me, will be attending and he is going to contact Attorney John Stewart
to see if he can also attend. Listed below are some points that you can
discuss at the meeting:
POINTS:
(1) No re-evaluation notices were received by any of the Tax Payers
involved including: Leila Atwater Graham (Map Reference #7.122.A.4),
Estelle E. Atwater (Map Reference #7.122.B.14C), Larry & Viola
Atwater (Map Reference #7.122.B.18), Goldie A. Moore (Map Reference
#7. 122.B. 15A) nor any of the several other parties that were con-
tacted by Mrs. Patricia Bains, the daughter of Larry & Viola, Atwater
as well as their property manager and the niece of the remainder of
the above mentioned Land Owners.
(2) The Chief Appraiser, Mr. John Smith, stated that he had received many
complaints, from Tax Payers stating that they had not received their
re-evaluation notices.
(3) According to the Chief Appraiser, Mr. John Smith, the Leila Atwater
Graham property (Tract #702362 & Map Reference #7. 122.A.4) was re-
evaluated and assessed as though the entire seventeen (17) acres
were located on the Western side of Smith Level Road. The actual
map designation shows that only approximately five (5) acres are
on the Western side and the balance of approximately twelve (12)
acres are located on the Eastern side. Mr. Kermit Lloyd, Tax Super-
visor concurred with these findings.
F G
(4) Mr. Smith also stated that the Western side if Smith Level Road
is zoned RSIR and the Eastern side is zoned R-4 and that the
Western side was assessed at a higher rate because of the zoning.
During the appraisal and assessment of this property, these facts
were not taken into consideration and he admitted that there was
an obvious error. Mr. Kermit Lloyd, Tax Supervisor, also con-
curred with these findings and stated that Mrs. Graham was ob-
viously over-assessed but that he was unable to do anything about
it.
(5) Also, according to N . Smith, the Estelle E. Atwater property
(Tract #710280, Map Reference #7. 122.B. 14C) was re-evaluated
and assessed as being one hundred per cent (100%) buildable,
when in fact the three and one-half (3.5) acres is not only
"Land Locked" but the property also has a perennial stream
running through it which diminishes the amount of buildable
acreage considerably due to the fact that seventy-five (75)
feet on either side of the stream can in no way be touched;
therefore, this would automatically decrease the assessed value
and market value of this. property. Mr. Kermit Lloyd, Tax
Supervisor, concurred with these findings, also.
(6) Mr. John Smith, Chief Appraiser- and Mr. Kermit Lloyd,' Tax
Supervisor have both admitted that errors in appraising and
assessing have obviously been made in regards to both of
these properties and that over payments have definitely been
made by the Tax Payers concerned. They both., along with
Mr. Albert Kittrell, County Manager and his assistant,
Pamela Jones and everyone else that has been contacted about
this problem, have refused to correct these errors and make
any restitution to the Tax Payers.
(7) These problems have been discussed with all of the aforementioned
people and also with Mrs. Marshall, Commission Chairperson and
Stephanie Snipes, Clerk of the Commissioners with no positive
assistance. Their last words have been basically the same,
"there is nothing that we can do about correcting our mistakes
'according to law".
(8) I have consulted an attorney and reviewed the Taxation Laws
#105-325 regarding the Powers of board of county commissioners
to change abstracts and tax records after board of equalization.
and review has adjourned and found in Item 4, page 654, that
changes can be made to correct appraisals, assessments and
amounts of taxes appearing erroneously on the abstracts or tax
records.
(9) Since obvious and admitted errors have been made we are simply
requesting that corrections and restitution be made. Since the
errors were made "within the system" the corrections should be
automatically made "within the system."
Thank you for your attention.
- - • •• • .. ,....... -. . 0. . . ---.•.• , •:.••••-- , '";:-4'''''.i. 11;'.. 4.
,do ii tk.'-':',''..?1,: m.1 '..' t4''''A; .'•'.' i+,?,./.''';ii ■--.!':'-'1' .1\T.,07-!'47-;40',.1•
,
,,...--:,;!'•..p,..I -.... ,,ilti,...i.e.*.".t A-,,43.4fam .•i:1,- 0,.t.„...-,7,..''',.;,77. 4115;,..i,;.:.,-,,., 1,..•L:.:.!:....,, ,.'4,,#::::,-,
. . T .
til
• _...,,..
, ,•,. . 444.; - •
. . . ,.. r•-7,) , ,-,,:-,,-..- ,-f, -'-... „.. , , ;- • A,
i .V :..;' 1,,y' ... ■ ;".',,,,___,•, .,7-" • ... ,..k•itfro-,.-A -'.4i,'
•
'''""'41.....,' Atm& ,.....,,..• .,„,, .. „..t,, 4.;,..4_4•1, ,tar •
•
,
i ,•' :i4ii14 '
i 1; • ' ,''- . • 4,•:;.- ,P.,' ''•-' .•.-• • r !•-■'-'A:•''.-■'••••,'k- 1,,ii,A‘\.!34•':„'•'11-,11 :.,...,.; .'',',V,',‘ i•••
.\-3 ' •.
‘,.. „tot., ,,,,. ,s...,,, d. „.. ,;17-:..,,., .,,„Ar,r,y^;,,,.-e-,,:-. ,.„7 . 0 ..,.:„.•....,,,,,, tI4....4.. •..'....... 4 Q• 4 Or'
t .y.,i4. ',',:`.•;••1 • ..e ';,,IL: .... 4,,,t%..V 1:t, I'•!I'fit.rtAr;SIC4.f.Y,;. L --:•:;'1:":;' •,.2...,;'4;.,%ii.1•44';•.
IL/' , .... I.
., -
::', •.I'•4 ,,i.,,,,;,.,.., . ...,... .!: ., ..„,.,.,..,....7:•.,4,-mt : :„..:.-.1.-,..,
,
. ,
. ,
• • • .•?., t.',.:',.?' '0,11•,., ,•,..t{:- '.4;: ,. ••••.,i‘.2••=2',V,.,T.12,-. ;:' T,i,••44,'... :,-.4...q. .,:,,;..c.f.:•-t,:t.:-....::: -...;;'.:-.,., ...1:::.." '.?:,';':',.:ItT.,-'.•,t.i.!:
. ;!.:...',...41.!:-i'..! '‘.::;, ..,.j.; •:;',,,i,'':',,eV,',7f.11:1,,'frA'r.r4i1.,'-.- -;:•••':_4::::i.:1?••..;', 0 :'''' ',„'.1 W,. .4-:•.'-;... 'ci.A•4-'::'2;,',11-1:• r..'.
. . -
• . ....:.. • , : ; •''. ':,i'.7-j-';',.11. . . . ,)..;1•.1,:...%';'..7.q:..,:.: , .",].,,.:'.-,-,:c;1 ..(.
. • , :.,•,. ... . .
,;;.;:',,•::-.._-;.. •,:• .....!,•,-,::-. 7,..- q...c: • • .:1:',,': !•-'-;,:*_:',:•;,:i.'::'4?`,, '...4-•'..;7:•,. ';1',--.':•-j,V,"• - . .;".•
. .,. ! .. .. .. ._
.•• ..';.e.,..k .' i;..'.-1.--':.T-':-. ; --5'.•11‘4-;!.:21"iff,,.. '514.,,s.r..;',•i'-.:,;,.,-si, ,,,--c',:,,,,,, ,,t,,,m, •I',.-. ...._,,,-,-- •:21,1„.i.J."ittf:f
•• .,.:,;, , ,,,:,,s:7_:.- ,._ . .-7.•,„,_.••,-, •-,-4...:.4.:,. ...4,i,,,/:...:,;.i::.::.:., ..,:•-•!,.=-„,.,•-••••:..,.:,..::.,--.*-I- ,.._,,,::,4:,-.. .4,_kr..,s524;:.-.,te.F.:•.'•;•
,.• ':......i .: .!.?..4.-r-,`:.7.,..;-.:!*,f.„ ..,:1,., :•:.P 4,:-., :--i"...-11.,_,r7:4-.._,,,•,,fii4,:f;.-.-k-?.7,:,,t'•;)-12:-••••,,-.. .•;•:,..,...,..,..=',•,1±,s,:..,:-,f:-..';_•,;•
•• ' • ' 4 ',
. .' .• - ','-', :. ‘.4i.1/..-i:;:--%-:.::4. tit ,-•-•;:.'1-1:,::::-•-•.'i0;-.-", NLI';-i'f• Tr.':?.Z.,":•,-:.'.:.,,.,,•:,,•;---!1:-'-..,-4 :;-7,1p-'"
,
V;.•'..,i -,il.,;*,j-g ,:c.",.;.: •47,c. ; j -: 4 $4 :::,Y,-' ..•?-,..f..''=,,Ii .-:-...:-.7.ir,:i:1:-•.• 4k-:-...-'-%,
, / . . 1 ,,I.. • •1,40,,,ip,.i.....,-.ii:, 4,,ii.... . .,,,.,,.: ,,;i,,..:,st:',..,.::,-7.--•,',:: ::,--•,-1...:,...• ',1--t:1.••••,••:' ':.• t.,,-=;'•_, 1;..1;•C,;••
• .
. ,
. .
• . . . ..„. ., .
' , • • .... ;.,,,...i. wor,....... ..?....q..i .5..,_.,i,::.‘k,t,.7,.7.&.,. ;_,,,,t_,.,1,4.,,,,,_, _rti'..., ..:';':i.T•LT,•::,-:"'''''fl.:•1 ....',:---•;.: ■'•'-•::'•:'7'....,'•••Z,Wi';-..
. . , ..
• .... :'i' :E.;..,•!,; •:!, _ •14,44;•='!":*-"2=';•:'''''''•::::''`4;:ci -:''''•••f-''''':- =:'.':-•,:c--...q.44:.=-::-.'
. . , ...., .
' , (-,..;gi,.!;,.'-i..f.;., ,:..,..-_,•••.,..i;..-.**,,t;.,.. 10..;,,,,„#,..,..,.,,,,, ,. .,,,4;:,.._•... ..p.1.7,-z-i, -i•A --1.7.1.e.:i
:,..- .;.....4._ -,..___, .-.,.. .‘,1-....::.,....,i,,,..t,i.tt.:7tto!,,,,..,,i.t.,i,44,14...a.rz,.' ....
,V„.,,i.., ,..-.. ... , .,..,.:,:, .....,..,::_.0.4i,._,,t.,,,,:....,:.,,.,,,,,,:,_,,,,,.t,71,r,..,!...,.,.,,,.4,,:-,,F,..;•.!--'•---.,.4-,.7 1, '4'..:.:.I'4 7.;114,-.--'.'.',...-.
-::-,'.....-,„:„.. . . . ••• . :
' :- .-..-.'.!- L _, . ..7;....,.. .,,,i:..,..14,,,,:...,,.,,,.,i_lvt!". ..'''-..t..,11',
.. •. -.. ... .
..."_ .,. ....,,,,.;,..:. ..L,...i., ,,..,:.,, ,k4,-,_-....:„I.... .1.;-;.7% .::.,:.,--....,••::. 111'..,•r •
.,. .,.,...... , .... . ..
. Of. op" ,,......".. : ,. :7,, ,,,,.., :. . . , ... .
— ,. . ; °: . •
s . - dd .... • • - L.. „,..,,,,,..... .,. ...,. .....,..4 ii_if....,f;. ,..4,....._:nittl .^.r-:-"i'' .1-- ;.14 -:!?', ';:•:..'."- -7-:'9'-:::::i':....-'.".•-
• ;. ....a - ....„.... _ .‘_,.,,,sv4
. 1, '. . i',77/,.t7 .4„.4,.,. nov.4071. t., zoo The. ...1•-•-% '' ,,' . -, ' •,:::-.-.. i/4!..?:-.1..f,.4117.7, .
, . , .
' ,1,,,.:. ....;;:.,•,..11...;,f...e.t.;::-0.,..:,,.... . _,,, ,I;,:k1.47::- .11!.104.1,•-^-w. '''.1.-',.:.,- •..r::-'-'-''';'' -
,
, ........,,,,r,4..fs,...,.„1-2i--- ....... . ,.:...,..,,,zt:.,...,.. ,..1 ,, ,,, .. ,,_ 2...i;Bt...,,.:rip.7,-..st-.7..F,'....;.-•„.. -- .1.2- :i.z.;_-,-;::'.„.
.
•._...,,,,..,,,,,.._.. -,,,. ..„-'Ig--.'.'"".'''-'---LAI'', ''''''...r1,-;* • •. ",,,,A.-..'1;•'1'..1-.'''
• .,. .
.
-.---"s.---.--. -.f-..r:!f. ,:,_,,. .;. ..,,. ,,,,;_t,, ., 1--- '..- -..i-7-'''''..;', ";716:. :..`i:' ' leri!,:•,..
.... - ...• ''-..*:.•..';:.,-, s . .. i,,,. ....
, ., .
. .
. ., _ ._
\
. . ,.. -, ,._.. .:_. .. :,..,.....!,,.... ,). .,. .,;,i.
.....•;-,----.■:.-7.kz.: ,.. _._...,,,:1: .,-5 1_ :":".. v] • r.. ,. ...,0,. • ,.:::„..,
. ••'...,r,.,..'.2.:.:-.... -:....:.,-: • , . .:.,.,,•"■•''.,, ..•; ..-- ,..45.4.,?„7,,,!,7-z...r.,- - -.1, ,.E'•it..i.3.• ,.11,-...7.-!..i-1,%Ai'
_ ,. . - .--: - ••,,.-.,:±-w-..,..---1--,-••■--,. -.-.., • , .-',-ri..:i.1:-.,,..-.:_;•:, ,s...--e_'.;,:z.,:-7'. .e.-'i-t•-•• ''Or---...-,'.-,•
—
.- ' ' ------'''' -'•: . s'..:'74'-' "'"'igt?';',i..-,,,'-',-;‘"."-'!".e?..:"Fg7;=:74:.'';&.'- '1,te,..•,I"%Ars::.g'... 4,_.-
. • ,,,. L.......... _
••• -..:•:'•,, •
. ...::.. ...,, : . ,• - - .,..•-.. ... .-
: •,.........:,T., ,.. -:••=.,f--,',•,..--i2,-;:i-,::;,-- *,:;1,1-7 ,.,..'",., ,r,,:,,,,,r,',.7=-,a,,ti„„,-.,•6'1,•:.11-,',4--;-..--v•-•',..;--•-;._-■..-,...!-;•';;',.. ..,;.,t,oz:',41,..4---.,.....,,f4..-
-,------,.. ..--..en -.,... -7-•'''...._ ..7.. •^1,4 .,r-Arrl ., ,;,,I.,-,,,. -..,..,-,,-;!.---,s-!•,1..,-;-:-..,-..., .v,,;,.......,-.,........,,.--:•:..'.
. ..,._ .
.......:„..•.-. - '..."
.„
,
, . . ... . ,... .
• '414.-' .. `--_,iik_r ,f.;:L5-;4'471;71,-,•..-,:t1.- arLL-•.;:',••••`-...-r'.-. ,‘;.....:.•-_-i,i'L ][7.2,i .... -;;!••-..,..'
...':-•-•;.:•: -.',',--.':•',',_;.';•---;',!!•••=,•:•••••• .. ' , • •••-.....,_—'• .:: . . --•,''',....,4'..I7,,., ..4-i54i:s.:-7::-JF-0.: •',1,,,,'4:',7,;7r:::41 ,--,.,„,„,',,,,••,,• ••,,,.,:.,.:',••'„ .: •••••7:;,-,?..... ••:',::1.:::!;--::: :--:'0. r.k.-,,•:-:.;•
- -• ,... .s.,41,,,,,',f'-::;=.„.' -- ...: •• ,.. '-.:-,:t4.*.7..-::-,--..4''',1,7,.,--',..-,..,,itkii ,:....,,,,•-,-,-,..-7:-..,,.,:::,,..,-z-..;,,,...: ,p,;4-, •..--:.-•.:-•';,...:-.:
,
-- . •• • '' '...'•' ... - • --• .i.i.....',!':`,,44,,,..':,..,-; :tIszgr.Y.C-fit.:4-:•.'.-.:.':"..--'7 :'-!..,.1-• TEri.ia-aplir#5,7,--7 . r.4tM .7.4f.P
, ..'• .. - '• .„.......■-- :
•.;-....•'..:'.•.......... . •' i..... ..''''.!:'..'. . ... '. . .•". . 11',0.4 ...-:;..7r::•:_r: -•14.ii:144-774-74:. -t.', 17-4141 -",-, '::'-f,:'.::•.::j_..'.'t.;;': ... .':::f.:a.::: :,..'.•V.'.■.
. •. . ... .
• •- '• .....,..
1.■'.:.T.'2.. 1-:::7•: ,,„7,fg:„'-•:, _ ..'. .,•:.....•-■:".:.....;;;•-•.':r- • • •.....--....;,..-77777.--7. -.4,...),,.., ,.. .. :;:..::-............_,•. .'-'44.--• .1"-'7,..,.',.. -.!. r;.-".:-,27 ' - -:...;.;„.•,;.:;•4:0,-4.4;!.;•: •,1,-.:-::•;:::-
-..•.,.,.t.'..":7.-.- ...4:-.i;....7:":' •.•.:;••••-.-•;'.''s:.,'- .'.7.,;.:4''?.: - '• .._..i !3!':.:.‘‘..'.;-:•::'.i.,)::•••....1f, ''..;-'1.4.".•:;:::....•'''-'' -''el..:17v2,;•.`:•i:.:".,_-.:7. 1,-7,...,•:;..... .,;;E:444;,,,,,..,,..7.:,:t..,:',..,....„.7;,,.. ....:,•:...A.,_:4,,..:,,.:,•;,. . ‘_,t'.' i,•:.,,,...;
7
44E,,,,•,,,; , .......1.....:,•••,:-:.7.!,:-.2!•:•'.:::..:..• : ••
-••;• .• '•I'''•:-4':•• :Yr;•,I.,i'. .I. ft ,'., ...kr:1:•i:T-:?. ,-.••fi:•4:','',:;'.,:'''7'•'-''''',''''..;•::•",, ,,,,',7■•:n74',....::`'.1.;;;',:,:...'=F.. ...i.r;-!•10:'''i'':
elk,..•,..... :•..-",,:e,;,',. ..:..-,.,1;;.;:-.••;•:-..-:.!.,.I.•,ii...,".,, . ..'•%. .. ..... . . :'..t'._•.:.. •tt.t•;;:it,,,..„rf: ... ... -,,,,....,::!?i•.;.-i.:!'.-.7,-,'' ,110, r.i.-4..-!..•,:. .....,/:,: 41-4.1'....=2,;r!... .„., '. ;,..4,•.:-..• •!--:C
'" • •- '-:• .,:e ••f:!•:25W.--
1,,„--T1,.'- ':_:,..',"2 :,2z.'.'•,-;;;Tii::;;igt-cxi'r..i7',....77.7,7-27'7,7727_:.:.4-1-..2, 2,!.-;,•2z :, :.:',/f4.,..T..
, . . . .,., .,.
' Fr7:777-..."1.tt,. -, ";',.-.„.- . •Z••:-'•:',•••••••• -)'.',:,'t,'-..;/•.},.,--;,,1-,z, _„;.,v7.77.7„..;•,,i-,...,.:.,.r.,7.:',..- .... ..:-.''i ...,:-.7,......7:;i7.:5,.... 4,':.;-....'
"le
' -'-' ---,... . .,•-ry5,-A.. . f•'-'2',,••':,,.:%-ri''t-t.:1-).- --1"-•••=,-:'74.'-';•:-'0•:•1.-,'Iiiir.'''''''.• r._.-F•tv ,.:,•,..,....?:••,i_',,'„.:-,-...';;,,•'.-i..,-;••••,'„.•-•:-..;....••?.,';'-'-,d;: -....,-s., ,_P,:-,...F-77';::,.';--- - ‘,....-•..,,•-:•:••
•• .-;•.•:, -: • ••••-••••;:-• • el--.-•,: '•.-.,••:•;,,:-....„.:•••fr,-',..1,',,i,e(-Ottz•-:::,,::_.-i-i.:• ,4-]•K,",iiiii,:fs,•••iz3.-3,,,-.•,•.5-:•.,:.,...--,•:::::::$:•:i.../,.-•-••-••,--•-••':-.1-,,,,-,.:-"•-•_:..-•,-,-5. ,:•_- ..wfw•••,:•.:.',' ::•H•1:-.1.;:'''';',-;''. ; ••,:'.i:),,):::''.,•:'..••,.',.-:-..:-,:•:..- ....:.•:,,, •• - ' 4.4.14--NL:q• •-'&4Pc?"-*; --- ai-iiiO3.--:1 :'-'-'-'..:-'''''' '-'-', --::-1;i:77'n74.,,,t. T.:7'!..:1i 2.-...--.1-i'il. • iWii.,:
itt
-'.- .. - ,.,.... ..,,s....._ ., -..• - ,,,,,. ' r•• tir)•,...::,i, ...i,':-;::-..--.• -•'''',,:•-•••
. "1"":".' "_1:•••,._. ,•.-■■•■■••••• - ••••••-6-1.4.6.r." ••• — • • ' '-.-' '----"-
:.-..,;..:-... : -. '
,,,
• , .••• ••,.,,._.• ... •:,..,„7„:-::......„__L...., . , ,,#•,ki..,,_... , „,,......,:„.,,..,•• ..ffat... ..;fa tetro
/. • .....-
- la •
oliaL '
‘• . ',-,',4i,f;:n1.;-- --r, 7- :-;,;; •,4-iii,i4i . .v-r^41,99,!5'.5:1Z.7.:27 :.;:f;:;;'-;:g.-.••:14-:;'•:,:,•,.;:. 8-*It:.',*.
2,.- 2
.. : -
,:4'' L.,,,:....i.•:.---::- :•••.-2.'7'•'' ; -:'4456+•-■fpfr.n2-x-•r' ., •,•--.---'---,'::5-- s.'.......1,1.:..-:,,-..-.';'..,-:-,•i:',..-.,..t-...,;,,,.,,,7,..:.....:-•, --,,,,i.,:+!,:::',...,...-3,-;,-:
'.' ' '.'-. ' ::.' I.'ell ' '''' -'''' ".1fii.i;'''' '---'''',.-i-:.rii:114'.' . . ''.....,>,-,z,f?•'-'-'ri -1-7'-r'r''-9- -... ;''':,;,.._._,,.:',...t.-41'.3.;,•::,,,ii,,4-1•,■•••,:ri,-.441 :4144.-. .4,,r-..--:,.
-- •••• ••••'.:1.,..::' ..', ......•-1,.• ' ' .... •••••••!..";•• ft . ,.,..._......:.'. ;,,,,4A1 ., -,441,-;:,, :--::„. !-,.:&...ii..;.',..-; - ...... ., -." ". ',•.-z..'ti-ii-; „,,,'::::,7:;-:':-',-..;:i7:=:-•1.1r:„.,:.;.,,,,.• ..,..4..c:;.
_,... . ,
..,.... ,
„...,.. .. — — .
-' ,••-...:-',....:-:-,Hi- ci • ..'..-_•:.',..;:.,: .-- ,.:1A,44:,': .•.. .• '70 . • .--.,• :::!,:'.. • . -'r...-,',z...• „iv ... ":„.-.;,:,-,....:::t,•,.„1..2,-,...,.:;, ::::?..,,..-- is. .L.J.::-_:F.t..,;;;;- ,..?r,:•.•-
• --., _.,.::-. ,:•:::-'••••., - -:•...;.•-:7"'-' 1111111r;;;7:..7.:;2:::'. ,.-•'1'vl•,-•,11 Ar.•'N'r.. 471- - •• 'i• ...77.,:)"....--•,'::: ',';f1...-,•::':. ...''. „...r';',......,., .,... '-'-4;i:',--,,77,.,:,:-•.-„:. ,..:.7.,:'.:.;.,':4,,:•'.I. ...i.: V:'.;V:..q.'iqi; :In.,
/
;.,. ..,. . • , , ..4,0' ..i f$.'.--_AO- •,i- ,.,•;-:i.-,..,.,.,.;„: , .4.,,...;,..
•'•f:T.:''',".... '--ill,F,:-:.• • -,'el-:,:" -''.'1!Yt'l-...-'. . '•-i'"eic''' ,. ,'''''.• . Nr.r■.T..!.'7,77-,:.:.:-:;74. --77..-,..t.:c.': • •-:'•
.,.• ' .., . ., :.:...71111r:...... '''''Ir ,'''. ' '( - .,-,::sis %4,...r t.,.. .• ^)...4L-:--,;-"7;... .fi.,.., ',L.-% _ , ,'.- 4..i1T.:77.X....-... :-.:.•:.:', ..,!.;. ,-;4-.1;.:-..!. .•:::'..a.i.27,,.'
, ... . ...,
^-111r . 7. S■ . 4)._•."2.# .''''''""•':':':' '''''' '...Alr.‹,n-..,94;:':3, ,,k'•& :.i..,.:::.',it'Ei'..... ,-,Ifi,..i. .:-.::;.01. • "5Y::::,::.•
-'- "'imp,-..■,........1* :' /IN-.,z.,.14,1, ',-, -''.'-t'i';'-:'1,"
.0- ' '..•"!:::::-.,'t!"...• ' ' - 'or.'5--',.• ''':;'-,•-:',-- :-..'74,7,--74-'cr:'-\kl.ti.,1;'r41 --... .":,.5, ''.1'-4,%•'`
' , '.:'''': ,' . All'o,,,•• ••• Witilii.N/7/ ,..;'.'n: c.... , . ''''''''".--Otitlir.'l':-':`,... ....T,,- ''••'±''''''','''-'1..:f 1;..,;'4 *\1* ' -4. -' . .— -
4,2.:.'•',.I•':,',;.,'1•44 414'9'.9,111"7,4,,.}.1i:- •-...',4-i.•y ...;:.••••,,.•
..;, ....• .. .•. ... .,_.
, ...
,,-)i. --- ',:. i ,.;• 0-• ••.,,•., .,,,,,,,,,. :,-.i.,-,i4,1 •.,-4::;... .-44-:-.
.. ', -••••• • I .. .•:. '
., ‘:. if' f..... -----------: .•,;',.....,, ..-,,..-., . ,,....:, , _ .:..., _ -\,.,...:•,,,,,,44,.,.::,.:,.. -..-,:.1,,,.,,, .,,...::,:-:::,,- • ..,......,.
.,.... ...... .. . . .
. . --,-. ..,_,-:.: .. 7-,,,.,,.* • •-•.; -.. il. •:.• —7.,,t-- .--,.. ,...,,,.,-,,,I... ....,.-....:;-..,. ....•
. ....
. . • ••• ...._ L.1)::.z., 2.5.
J..' c.-. - 1",) •'./';!• , '1,.•-•`--. ,, :.,,-. ,.1,,:.:4' -.7].-. ■ :1 ••44:Z,.',Ir' '.„•
"4,2 r. •T. . T. . . r..2 ,,..„...1`•
2 •2,-„,„.:,• './
/. a 4 t. .‘, I. .r. •
'......': ', 1_,10... e"...-,-... - 'fr...,'''' '.•••-•• • 14-
klr ii; ils\lo\‘‘11,/,...,..."... t;,'' ' ,..4.,.4.,414:11;. :4•;:;-;", !.'1': .,.,...,_ .. 3,-;:q, . c.)
•.- - , .
. . .
••••-• • t •..„? • ; ..•
..,... •frim,,,..,; i:,..,:•:„.1.i.; x
1 , . / i'. ,,.iii.•122. loot ..,,..: (':/ 4;•.;.)."'r.,.: ::-..,:, :',..,..:,..f?
'‘. .. '':' -,-\4 .4.1.1.. ,.•'..:'• .,.,,:''','',Y;IL..., r • .••,14,1f a;...N. -.,,:. . -.,;.,4,:f....,,,-',..:.-.;,,,..,,,, . .„,,.., ,,,,,,,,,.,„•„„.. a
,
• --‘,:i.,',L•74',,r•-,-/r)...,;" ., ,_..,5,:•.'1-.?,: '',-;":',..-;::1",-;'..zs,
,. - ,.-:...7.... \\.:., :.- .,,. .tp.: . -•'..-1.7....r•.:- ,r- .ti •...., ' . '4:'„',..,', .7",';,'.--...'.- , :1,1'74.2.;'.f:;;•=4`!.1'A4-' .4"
■ Ahh..../ 1.
-.• .:It P !:41, 7..■'7;.,.• .::. 17,„- . •,• • ....,,„..
•-.-.•...,•:! ,,, ., •.., . 4...40 ,:'.4it . _, . N ''.',....L.' 0 .;.•-,:.,:f.;,::::.,:;::,;:i•-:4,-c,--6,4',-..'-,:;:..':„,-
11111114---="4-1111r"-. 11._:::_..1 :•,•7. ,.........,..1:-.• .....„ ::::.,.",,,...,..: 4..,1,,'.1sil.,:, ....,: ,,,,..:.,,..,..,.. ..$....: ,
:,,3;.s.....:..,.. ,,,,,,_, ,:ie ,..:7.., v.,1.4...:.,,,,., ..!...j4,....:4„z.... „..,44...e.:•••,,L '':-:...:•;',1'-';,,:•;*:-i.: ;::, .:-:'•:::•'-i:;;•"1 "
,...,,,,,:..7,-,•,•,...,- •-,--,.:,,,..'
.._,...,:,,,,„. ..:45titt...„:,; „ :,,,...,,, . .,.,..,:_,..•_., . ,.,,,,,, ,,,. -tale /,.-....,• .. ....,...:. :,,y,..,...,...., ,
7 Ns\
-,-...,
- ' •
7 •?•,‘• -i i i
,
,
,
. • ,,,021,•••:.2:•• -• i'er,.\\,••••// pi:. • .4•iiv • de•:-.':-.'7.:%,•;.:.-T=::::::- :•.:•'..-:-.7• •
• r .— - -, .., , -
.....,:.,.,....,_
d
• ........ ,.... _,.:,
._... c....• ,
.: .
.,... t ,....,,.... .
, mr.,;, ..... . .. .. ......., -7 ,:,...
• .'•.. .' i'..• •-•- :-, 4-,-,4•!.:: 4.7t,fr,,.;f.,.,,;,,.. p. ..,.--.,.,,•;.... - .. ‘,. ,,,....,,.,,,.:..4,•,.,.,,, • .,,.. . . .
• - --1..1't.-.4..-.r, .'. ..•;,,.1....1-.
e. t
''' ' ''''j''.': '''•••••tii,,,'N•••:•:•''•'•...3';.:,.. .;---■••• . ., ...*—
/
,.. , . •
' ••Iti.....' 4-..'':1'A•:-.'`' ....,- .l'i.:Tfi,•, 1,1'..•\ :2', .''. t'''.''' ,..;.- .t(...,.,4•4,\ •..,...i.....!;:- ••-,,.•;•,.- :rn- . : •''',.
'i;iitilifidAS i..,. '',.P....,. t..t.:c.„.,...1,.".• .. .4g.
. ,p,t .. .... .. ...,;,-,,,,-- , ,i',^ -■ . . ■-., ,.
*.! bi 1. •
It • t
11%
/ ....: •
' '
f .. ,,. ,
, ... .
, • .__. . „..,„•,, . ••
f. , , .
. _
„4:-... ta-.. •:.
- ■ :::.;,..;,••,-;•:::- ‘-. .,`"-7- -r•F,'-;-:
. •_••• " 12: k..-.\":.:-.
. . . . .._ . .
•--P , ..,,,, ' -••- .
I
i,„. ,
TAX BILL INFORMATION
GRAHAM, LEILA ATWATER
RT. 13, BOX 196
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514
TOWNSHIP ACCOUNT: 7-21812
BILL NO. : 3719
TRACT: 702362
P.I.N. : 9778-60-9378
DESRRIPTION: W/0 SMITH LEVEL ROAD
LOT/ACRES: A17
MAP REFERENCE: 7.122.A.4
REAL ESTATE: $748,289
TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY: $736,289
TAX YEAR: 1987
CURRENT TAX DUE: $6,236.37
TYPE TAX/LICENSE RATE AMOUNT
COUNTY .606 $4,461.91
S. ORANGE FIRE .076 559.58
C. H. SCHOOL .165 1,214.88
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION 1,200.
TAX BILL INFORMATION
ATWATER, ESTELLE E.
502 W. CAMERON AVENUE
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514
TOWNSHIP ACCOUNT: 7-15919
BILL NO.: 21329
TRACT: 710280
P.I.N. : 9777-79-2278
DESCRIPTION: #8 ANNIE ATWATER
LOT/ACRES: A3.5
MAP REFERENCE: 7. 122.B. 14C
PERSONAL PROPERTY: $2,160.
REAL ESTATE: $57120.
TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY: $59,280.
TAX YEAR: 1987
CURRENT TAX DUE: $502.10 PAID
TYPE TAX/LICENSE RATE AMOUNT
COUNTY .606 $359.24
S. ORANGE FIRE .076 45.05
C. H. SCHOOL .165 97.81
-
; , n
4r •
§ 105-$2¢ § 105-325 CH, 105. TAXATION § 105-325 j
lization and review to an order of the county board shall Judicial review of the State Board's
er the provisions of appeal to the State Property Tax Corn- (now Property Tax Commission) admin-
er the p 105-277,o- mission. In turn, a taxpayer who is un- istrative decisions is always available.
ber 312 a the board of satisfied with the decision of the Prop- In re Reeves Broadcasting Corp., 273
erty Tax Commission shall appeal to the N.C.571, 160 S.E.2d 728(1968i.
n and review may North Carolina Court of Appeals, and When a judicial review is sought in
and review entered then to the North Carolina Supreme the superior court on the record made
[05-322, or 105-312 Court. Johnston v. Gaston County, — before the State Board (now Property
mission. To N.C.App.—,323 S.E.2d 381(1984),
mss days perfect Valuation by Property Tax Corn- Tax Commission), findings court is variance
Y after the mission Is Final and Conclusive. — with findings make of the at eaBoard
e notice of its deci- This section contemplates that valua- wtth the findings of the State Board
t written notice of tion fixed by the State Board(now Prop- (new Property Tax Commission) which
of appeal with the erty Tax Commission)shall be final and are supported ey use that and the exclu-
conclusive the Property conclusive where no error of law or tial evidence because that is the exclu
>ert Tax Commis- abuse of discretion is alleged. Belk's sive function of the State Board of As-
with
Dep't Store v.Guilford County,222 N.C. sion). I t snow Property Tax Commis,
5-290(b). 441,23 S.E.2d 897(1943),citing Wade v. 273 In 571,Reeves Broadcasting(196 Corp.,
ber of the board 73 N.C.571,160 S.E.2d 728(1968),
and Of Commissioners of Craven County, 74
:he board of county N.C.81(1876). Administrative Remedies Must
of G.S. 105-287, The State Board (now Property Tax First Be Exhausted.e The legislature
Property Tax Corn Commission) has full authority, not- has provided adequate means whereby
appellants shall, withstanding irregularities at the the individual taxpayer may contest not
county level,to determine the valuation only the valuation which the county
ioners has entered and enter it accordingly.Such valuation Commissioners have placed upon his own
, written notice of so fixed is final and conclusive unless property but the entire tax list or assess-
3f appeal with the error of law or abuse of discretion is ment roll, and he must exhaust this ad-
with the Property shown.In re Reeves Broadcasting Corp., ministrative remedy before he can resort
Brty Tax Commis- 273 N.C.571,160 S.E.2d 728(1968). to the courts. King v.Baldwin,276 N.C.
5-290(b). The legislature's intent is that the 316,172 S.E.2d 12(1970).
hall be deemed to agency designated to hear appeals in all The superior court has no authority to
matters pertaining to tax valuations issue mandamus commanding the corn-
' the Commission, should also be the one empowered to missioners to revalue all real property
s. 1; 1973,e. 476, make the final valuation. The State in the county at its true value in money,
Board of Assessment(now Property Tax since taxpayers must first exhaust the
Commission)—unlike the courts--has statutory administrative remedies in
the staff,the specialized knowledge and the county board of equalization and re-
expertise necessary to make informed view and in the State Board of Assess-
decisions upon questions relating to the ment (now Property Tax Commission)
valuation and assessment of property. before they can resort to the superior
King v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 316, 172 court. King v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 316,
S.E.2d 12(1970). 172 S.E.2d 12(1970).
rder and appeal to the Established Fact of Common Applied in In re King, 281 N.C. 533,
'roperty Tax Commis- Knowledge Must Be Considered. — 189 S.E.2d 158(1972).
laintiffs may resort to The Property Tax Commission is neither Quoted in In re Certain Tobacco, 52
to obtain judicial re- required nor permitted to shut its eyes N.C.App.299,278 S.E.2d 575(1981).
sw or abuse of discre- to an established fact of common knowl- Cited in In re Bosley, 29 N.C. App.
Board (now Property edge. In re Valuation of Property Lo- 468. 224 S.E.2d 686 (19761: In re
King v. Baldwin,276 cated at 411-417 W.Fourth St.,282 N.C. Barham. 70 N.C. App. 236, 319 S.E.2d
d 12(1970), 71,191 S.E,2d 692(1972). 657(1984),
aw provides two eve-
taxpayer may seek
ust property tax as- § 105-325. Powers of board of county commis-
trative review fol- sioners to change abstracts and tax
view in the Court of
t judicial review in records after board of equalization and
court. Administra- review has adjourned.
the county board of
review. The county (a) After the board of equalization and review has finished its
on to ,;ear any tae• work and the changes it effected or ordered have been entered on
iplaint as to the list- the abstracts and tax records as required by G.S. 105-323, the board
his or others'prop- of county commissioners shall not authorize any changes to be
vho wishes to except made on the abstracts and tax records except as follows:
653
§ 105-325 CH. 105. TAXATION § 105-325 § 105-326
(1) To give effect to decisions of the Property Tax Commission
on appeals taken under G.S. 105-324.
(2) To add to the tax records any valuation certified by the d.
Department of Revenue for property appraised in the first
instance by the Department or to give effect to corrections
made in such appraisals by the Department.
(3) Subject to the provisions of subdivisions (a)(3)a and (a)(3)b,
below, to correct the name of any taxpayer appearing on (b) The
the abstract or tax records erroneously; to substitute the sor genera
name of the person who should have listed property for the tion (a),
name appearing on the abstract or tax records as having above.
listed the property; and to correct an erroneous description (c) Orde
of any property appearing on the abstract or tax records. the tax su
a. Any correction or substitution made under the provi- that are r
sions of this subdivision (a)(3) shall have the same to the P•
force and effect as if the name of the taxpayer or de-
105-324(c
scription of the property had been correctly listed in 193 )
the first instance, but the provisions of this subdivi-
sion (a)(3)a shall not be construed as a limitation on
the taxation and penalization Local 1%1
pe alization of discovered property 1981(Reg.
required by G.S. 105-312. Legal F.
b. If a correction or substitution under this subdivision procedural
(a)(3) will adversely affect the interests of any tax-
payer, he shall be given written notice thereof and an
opportunity to be heard before the change is entered
on the abstract or tax records. Board
(4) To correct appraisals, assessments, and amounts of taxes may not
appearing erroneously on the abstracts or tax records as informatior.
the result of clerical or mathematical errors. (If the clerical supervisor':
or mathematical error was made by the taxpayer, his
agent, or an officer of the taxpayer and if the correction
demonstrates that the property was listed at a substantial
understatement of value, quantity, or other measurement, Listi'
the provisions of G.S. 105-312 shall apply.)
(5) To add to the tax records and abstracts or to correct the tax
records and abstracts to include property discovered under
the provisions of G.S. 105-312. § 105
(6) Subject to the provisions of subdivisions (a)(6)a, (a)(6)b,
(a)(6)c, and (a)(6)d, below, to appraise or reappraise prop-
erty when the tax supervisor reports to the board that,
since adjournment of the board of equalization and review, (a) Al:
facts have come to his attention that render it advisable to town shL
raise or lower the appraisal of some particular property of 105-307
a given taxpayer in the then current calendar year. person r
a. The power granted by this subdivision (a)(6) shall not pared ac
authorize appraisal or reappraisal because of events or 105-310.
circumstances that have taken place or arisen since , with the
the day as of which property is to be listed. make pr
b. No appraisal or reappraisal shall be made under the the sour
authority of this subdivision (a)(6)unless it could have erty sub,'
been made by the board of equalization and review (b) Rc
had the same facts been brought to the attention of provides:
that board. sions of
cr If a reappraisal made under the provisions of this subdi- erty for
vision (a)(6)demonstrates that the property was listed 105-30F.;
at a substantial understatement of value, quantity, or stracts.
654
105-325- ''; f,4. § 105-326 CH. 105. TAXATION
I 11
Tax Commission ,'x'^' 105 326
other measurement, the provisions of G.S. 105-312 H
1
certified by the `;:' " shall apply.
raised in the first ,41, d. If an appraisal or reappraisal made under the provi-
sions of this subdivision (a)(6) will adversely affect the
rect to corrections
nt, • interests of any taxpayer, he shall be
given
1)(3)a and (a)(3)b, notice thereof and an opportunity to be heard before
ver appearing on the appraisal or reappraisal shall become final.
to substitute the (b) The board of county commissioners may give the tax supervi-
i property for the sor general authority to make any changes authorized by subsec-
ecords as having tion (a), above, except those permitted under subdivision (a)(6),
leous description above.
t or tax records. (c) Orders of the board of county commissioners and actions of
under the proms_ the tax supervisor upon delegation of authority to him by the board
have the same that are made under the provisions of this section may be a
taxpayer or de- to the Property Tax Commission under the s s PPeG.S.
irrectly listed in 105-324(c), (1939, c. 310, s. 1108; 1971, c. 806, a. 1; 1973, c. 476, s.
of this subdivi- 193.)
a limitation on
overed property Local Modification. Buncombe:
1981(Reg.Seas.,1982),c.1279, ery of property unlisted for purposes of
ad val
this subdivision Legal Periodicals. — For note on 97em taxation,see 51 N.C.L. Rev.
?sts of any tax_
procedural developments in the discov- 531)1973).
thereof and an
ange is entered OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
nounts of taxes Board of county commissioners equalization and review is in session.
ou records as may not reappraise property when See opinion of Attorney General to Mr.
information as to change comes to tax H.L.Riddle,Jr„41 N.C.A.G.514(1971 i,
i. (If the clerical supervisor's attention while board of
taxpayer, his
the correction
It a substantial ARTICLE 22.
• measurement,
Listing, Appraising, and Assessing by Cities and
correct the tax Towns.
scovered under
a)(6)a, (a)(6)b, § 105-326. Listing property for city and town taxa-
appraise prop- tion; duty of owner; authority of gov-
7e board that, errilri body to obtain lists from county.
it advisable to (a) All property subject to ad valorem taxation in an y city or
lar property of town shall be listed annually during the eriod d
r year. by G.S.
105-307 in the city or town in which it is taxable prescribed the name of the
s)(6) shall not person required by G.S. 105-302 and 105-306 on an abstract re-
se of events or pared according to G.S. 105-309 and affirmed as required by G
)' arisen since 105-310. In lieu of requiring property owners to list their property
d. - with the city or town, the governing body of any city or town may
ids under the make provision for obtaining from the abstracts and tax records of
it could have the county in which the municipality is situated lists of the prop-
s and review erty subject to taxation by the city or town.
attention of (b) Regardless of whether a city or town adopts the alternative
provided in the second sentence of subsection (a), above, the provi-
of this subdi- sions of G.S. 105-311 and 105-312 shall apply to the listing of pro -
rty was listed erty for municipal taxation, as shall the penalties imposed by G.S.
quantity, or 105-308 and 105-312 for failure to list. In the preparation of ab-
stracts, tax records, and tax receipts the city or town shall be gov-
655
imiiiiminiming
ORANGE COUNTY TAX SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE
208 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
HERMIT LLOYD November 17, 1987
Tax Supervisor
Patricia Bains
c/o Caldwell Bankers
580 El Camino Real
San Carlos, Calif 94070
Dear Ms. Bains:
This is a follow-up to our conversation in my office on Tuesday of
this week. Hopefully the following explanation will clarify the procedures
involved in the administration, assessment, and appeals of property values.
The 1987 Orange County Revaluation of real property was conducted in
accordance with the guidelines, standards, and procedures regulated by
Subchapter II, Chapter 105 of the General Statutes of North Carolina
governing the listing, appraisal and assessment of property for ad valorem
taxation. The purpose of a countywide revaluation is to adjust the value
of real property to the current market value as prescribed by Section
105-283 of the General Statutes mandating uniform appraisal standards.
Each property owner received a Notice of Value advising them of the
adjusted value of their property effective January 1, 1987. The notice
advised the recipient to contact the Tax Supervisor's office to review
the appraisal within ten (10) days from the date of the notice if they had
reason to believe the appraisal did not represent the true market value of
their property. Section 105-296(1) of the General Statutes allows the Tax
Supervisor the authority to change an appraisal for good cause if he
believes the evidence warrants a change. The Tax Supervisor has this
authority during the current year prior to the first meeting of the County
Board of Equalization and Review.
If a property owner is not satisfied with the Tax Supervisor's decision
they may appeal to the county Board of Equalization and Review, which must
convene between the first Monday in April and not later than the first
Monday in May, as prescribed by Section 105-322(e) of the General Statutes.
Once. the Board of Equalization and Review convenes, the Tax Supervisor no
longer has the power to make changes and the power passes to the Board.
The Board then has the authority to make changes as appropriate and may
hear appeals through June 30 of the current year. Every appellant is
notified in writing of the decision rendered by the Board and advised that
if they wish to 'appeal the Board's decision they must request an appeal
to the state Property Tax Commission within thirty (30) days from the date
of the Board's notification. (General Statute 105--324(b)).
After June 30,
1987 no one at the county level has the authority to
change a property value except the Board of County Commissioners, and then
4 ,
Patricia Bains
Page Two
only if there is a clerical error, an illegal tax or a tax for an illegal
purpose. The Board of County Commissioners can be personally liable for
the amount of taxes released for any other reason.
In view of the above and pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes
governing taxation, I can see no legal way that Orange County can change
the appraisal on subject property for the 1987 tax year; however, you may
as I explained, initiate your appeal of the subject appraisal in 1988.
I trust this has sufficiently responded to your concerns. Please contact
me if I can be of any further service.
Sincerely,
rmit L1
Assessor, 0 e County
/
®8324
.1346
0.
~ 2'" �J
z 8 76 A�D:
/
CI ' 1039`
C oRarEa� "�
• AC.
:.. { ,? 17
387 r!!'' �, T� • �.^ ,� � '
e.: ,, a 7l�98
- ',.. gr/1104100 ' , -::-- -- .....
5 O.
;, '. 4 w".. 7 5 1 ` I1.4327AC.
.�N" Q 2746 (,A1.7 ' i
L
2 � aP/57AC.4.�,. 8.64 AC. .: . _ 1
� ,r 1
a:,_�_ 'rd 8$73 . '.4,411, 1, :, ,,iiitt / i 0 I AC 0 .
41 c ``�:,.�
SEE
P 2 r wwij; ` •C • 9314
' •3240 C case . , P - , r —.._,4
1988 ,4 - �.�. �.� _
/3./6/94C. 0
.2905 - - _ _1 13AC
!F� 18.3775A
/
I 1 48,luf 0
C: 7 L
e :, AMR °A7., . "r
Ia, 4.1 AC.
I I I AC. .4
134
pc: 4438 - .,
3.85 AC' �3
8
Ja-
8A _9afs
46.06 AC. 8
FU
MArcW A
1111•10'
4.
■:■,',f,1 , '1i;!e..' :`,':"I'l;
040i1/0
14'1'. '' , ■:.:1,i'S'il,Li:14di' ',r,.,,1''I.' '
. *0 , .411.14!'l 'r, „',.• ,,,04,., '• Ili.it':',i.,,,;-
ih,
4 ' 0•:,,:,f,,.,
i„.„4:'10,r.:1,
1
_--■`-----
/4/744/f /.q//,s-/r7 G/rte
----OE-7TV 24 ivOtkela
Statement for the Public Hearing on the Proposed Capital Improvement Plan
for Orange County, held December 15, 1987, in Chapel Hill North Carolina,
by Betty H. Landsberger, Chair, Orange County Advisory Board on Aging.
The Advisory Board on Aging (ABA) at its meeting December 10, 1987,
directed me 1) to convey to the County Commission their reactions to the
group of items contained in the CIP which relate to facilities for senior
services; 2) to request that further consideration be given to two items
submitted for the CIP but not included in the document; and 3) to make
a request regarding the calendar for developing plans and budgets.
1. The ABA is very pleased with the inclusion of the projects for building
the Central Orange Human Services Complex (pp. 41-45) and the Southern Orange
Human Services Complex (pp. 72-78), both of which will contain much-needed
space for the multitude of activities which go on in Senior Centers.
" These include the social, educational and nutrition programs; a room for
health-related activities (screening, counseling, health promotion);
adult day care (for which increasing need has been noted); _.
space necessary for administring the ) n"" with office
g programs and coordinating with other
agencies; and auxiliary space for reception room, bus-waiting areas, etc.
The Computerized Information System for County Services (pp. 111-113) will
make a great addition to our capability for Information and Referral service
throughout the county and presents an opportunity to increase attention to
health education and improve citizen access to a variety of services.
2. The ABA regret that two of the projects submitted by the DoA were not in-
cluded in the Proposed CIP. We wish to state briefly our reasons for re-
questing that further consideration be given to those project requests.
A. The JOCCA Efland-Cheeks Multipurpose Center presently houses the nutrition
program for older persons in that area. Though this site is not a
Senior Center and not administered by the DoA, it serves as a community
center and staff from Aging and other county departments as well as
other agencies do go there regularly for activities and services.
The building is presently leased from a private owner. It is in poor
condition and is inadequate as a site for, among other things, the Senior
activities going on there. The ABA agrees with the JOCCA project that
the improvements needed are far greater than can be handled by addressing
this (as the County Manager suggested) in the Public Works budget.
Apparently one possibility would be to put a building on some county-owned
land alongside the school property close to the present Center location
where the County Recreation and Parks Department plans to develop a
Community Park.
We realize that the ABA is not directly involved in this matter. Never-
theless, it appears that some means needs to be found to provide services
in that community and township. We urge that the Commission explore the
possibility of including in the CIP facilities to provide services to
the people in and around Efland.
- 2 -
B. A sattelite center was proposed for the East Chapel Hill area, to be built
as an addition to the Community Building on Estes Drive and constructed
jointly with the Town of Chapel Hill. This project was submitted in res-
ponse to the great and rapid increase in the population of older persons
in the area near that location and their needs for activities accessible
to them. Judging by reports from churches located in the area there is
a rapidly growing need for space for meetings and group activities which
at present are entirely self-directed and don't require staff. Also, the
facilities for swimming and other forms of exercise make the Community
Building very valuable from the standpoint of health promotion.
While the space for Senior activities in the Southern Orange Human Services
Complex will have the capability to provide services for the older people
in that area provided adequate transportation services are in place, it
seems to the ABA that the present rate of growth indicates that both the
space in the Complex and one or even more new sattelites will be needed
before the five year span of the CIP is completed.
Just as with the Efland Center, the ABA urges that the Commission explore
the possibility of including this project in the CIP.
3. Finally, the ABA respectfully requests that on future occasions when plans
and budgets are developed, there be room in the calendar for consideration by
the board which acts as an adviser to the Commission for this department
(and we would think also other departments.)
It is our estimate that we need two months for the Board to look at what
the staff proposes alongside the goals and mission of the department to
arrive at our recommendations. We think the Commission has been very wise
in establishing citizen groups like the ABA to attempt to feed in to the
decision-making process the opinions about service needs for segments of the
county population representating different geographic locations, races,
genders and income groups. It takes time for the board members to make
accurate assessments of the public's view of particular proposals, and
whether citizens are prepared to support expenditures. We regard the time
for the Board to deal with plans and budget as crucial to our advisory
function and urge that the planning calendars in future be developed with
this in mind.
On behalf of the Board, let me thank you for this opportunity to present
these comments for your attention.
Orange County, North Carolina
PROPOSED .
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT .
PROGRAM
1985 — 89 through 1992 — 93
�gllkl All,
'N;��:��•;t\:\\\ \\ '�� \�\. \ 4
\�\. "h?::c`'>., z•,<< .;.;:tip '\�\�\\: \,, ;z«,..
h
v s..
w•
S�l�i i31•l, ."i. �. �•''• \\'„�, ����� - - \,\' .,��. 1�.��, y`'\\is` i\v �:. h.V.,\,;,
1
H.P is
•\4. a 1
\ \\
\ ,
k.
1 4 ♦ \
\g
41. .�•.
\ \
4
,\ \
4 i \ \'
,\ \
h'
\
h.
\\
!1i
"Ell
\'
C
\\'
„+
\ ,a
,b+
..c
\\
\„
\
\
\
t
\4
\
ORANGE COUNTY
FACILITIES
Project Profile
Project., Animal . Shelter
Project Cost $431,200
Description: Construct 40 kennel runs.
Construct multipurpose
education room, small animal
holding room, storage room and
an administrative office.
Project Profile
Project: Central Human 'Services Annex
Project Cost: $1,278,620
Description: Remove Old Orange Industries
Building and construct new facility
on the site to house Department
on Aging and OPC Mental Health.
Construct additional 60 — space
parking lot.
Project Profile
Project:- Livestock/Agriculture Center
Project Cosy: $1,549,120
Description: Acquire and develop ._a AO :-ac-re tract
of land, a livestock. facility and
purchase equipment.
Construct an Agriculture Center. to
provide office space, storage areas,
food lab, conference room and
employee lounge.
Project Profile
Project: Emergency Services 911 Center
Project Cost: $2$2,000
Description: Construct an "L" shaped building to
p rovide training areas, equipment
storage areas, administrative offices,
communications console expansion
area and work station for Emergency
Services support staff.
Project Profile
Project: Sheriff Administrative Offices
Project. Cost: Addressed in future Public Works
budget and service plans,*
Description: Expansion within existing .building
for . Sheriff function..
i
Project Profile
Project. jail
Project Cost: $500,000 ($200,000 of this to be
provided through Federal
Marshall's Office.)
Description: Create bedspace in the small expansion
area on the second floor. (Paid for
with Federal Marshall grant.)
Demolish and reconstruct original
exterior walls.
Create a law library.
Provide inside recreational area.
Project Profile
project. Public -Works Facility; Motor Pool
Project Cosh $985,000 �
Description: Construct a garage equipped with 10
work bays,- five 15,000 -pound -fl-oor
lifts, one 40,000 pound floor lift, parts
and fire storage areas, five offices,
showers, dressing/locker room, and
exterior vehicle storage.
Project Profile
Project: Public Works Facility; Access Road
Project Cost: $240,000
Description: Purchase property and construct
a new access road into Public Works.
Project Profile
Project:. Expansion within the existing .. .
Southern Human Services Complex
Project cost: Addressed in future Public Works
budget and service plans.
Description: OPC will expand their- operations to
Building A of the Southern Human
Services Complex upon relocation
of the County- Offices to the new
building.
Project Profile
Project: Southern Human Services Complex
Project Cost: $3,183,240
Description: Construct office complex to provide
space for Southern Orange human
service agencies.
Project Profile
Project: Tax and Records Building
Project Cost: $2,880,400
Description: Construct an office building for the
Tax, Records- and Administrative
Offices.
ORANGE COUNTY
EQUIPMENT
Projects for Five—Year CIP
County Equipment
rRC3 $CT 1988-89 1.989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 TOTAL
J
Central Services 'iielephone $ 80,009
llnswerhig System $ B0,000
M9250 Computer Syste
050,909
m 259,000
.
Remarping rroJect
215,000 315,000 � 350,000 880,000
435,0[]0 435,000
Enhanced 911 and CAP Syste"I
15n,aaa $ 2x0,990 39,909
Public Works Veldcles
TOTAL COUNTY EQuirMENT $ 445,000 $ 565,900 $ 220,000 �s5,0a9 $ 2,Ot5,000
PARKS AND
RECREATION
MASTER PLAN
Project Profile
Project: Master Park Plan
Project Cost: $6,498,000
Description: Land acquisition and
of parks throughout the County;
and construction of swimming
pools.
Projects for Five-Year CIP
Parks and Recreation Master Ilan
PROJECT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 TOTAL
Etland Cheeks $ 28,000 $ 40,000 $ 45,000 $ 113,000
Fairview Community 126,000 110,000 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 40,000 476,000
DinghannICane Creek 18,000 85,500 48,000 37,500 75,000 264,000
Caldwell Community 100,000 100,000 140,000 305,000 100,000 745,000
University Station 100,000 100,000 100,000 70,000 275,000 645,000
Cedar Grove/Little Vlver 250,000 250,000 500,000
Northern human Services Center 100,000 100,000
White Cross 150,000 150,000
Swimming Pools 60,000 140,000 1,630,000 1,430,000 3,260,000
Green Ways 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 65,000 245,000
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREAHON
MASTER PARK PLAN $ 477,000 $ 620,500 $ 2,108,000 $ 2,237,500 $ 1,855,000 $ 6,498,000
CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO SCHOOLS
Construction/Renovation Projects
Project Profile
School: Carrboro Elementary
Project Cost: $1,325,250
Description: Construct three additional classrooms,
new art room, music -room, science
room and computer lab.
Expand administrative, teacher and
student support areas.
Provide additional storage.
Upgrade electrical service and
parking facilities.
Project Profile
school: Seawell Eleme- ntar
Y
Project Cost: $2',187,000
Description:: Construct nine additional classrooms and two
rooms for resource programs*
rt multipurpose/art com
Conve lex to art and music.p
Build full — size multipurpose room.
Construct computer lab and media center.
Renovate media center space for support areas.
Expand administrative, teacher and student
support areas.
Provide additional storage.
Project Profile
School: FrankPorterGrahamElementazy
Project cost: $11588,F000
Description: Construct eight additional classrooms, art and
music rooms, and a computer lab.
Renovate the media center.
Renovate the open space teachin g area
in Building 4,
Renovate and expand the support areas and storage
— Counselor's office
— Teachers lounge office area
— Textbook and janitorial storage
g
Project Profile
schooi: Ephesus Elementary
Project Cost: $1,439,000
Descri iion: Construct ten additional classrooms.
P
Locate computer lab in shop area.
Construct new art. and music rooms.
Expand administrative and student
support areas
-- Guidance offices
Assistant Principal's office
— Conference room
— Support services
Upgrade kitchen facility.
Project Profile
School: Glenwood Elementary
Project Cost: $1,201,500
Description: Construct seven additional classrooms.
Construct Science Room.
Upgrade facilities in rims classrooms
p �Y
(toilets, sink, storage).
Expand support areas
— Larger facilities
— Adequate restrooms
-- Improved circulation
Project Profile
School: Estes Hills Elementary
Project Cost: $1,256,500
Description: Construct seven additional classrooms as
required to support the Basic
Educational Program.
Renovate and expand support areas
Conference and testing rooms
— Teacher office area
— Additional storage
Project Profile
School: Culbreth Middle School
Project Cost: $1,124,500
Description: Add eight teaching stations to accomodate
an enrollment of 750 students.
Renovate and expand science and
business classrooms:
Expand and renovate teacher support areas.
Add bleachers and tennis courts
to athletic fields.
Project Profile
School; Phillips Middle School
Project. Cost: $1,705,000
Description: Construct four additional classrooms.
Enlarge science, typing and home
economics rooms.
Expand all support areas to complement
the middle school program.
l
4
Project Profile
School: Chapel Hill High
Project Cost: $,,103,000
Description: Construct 36 additional teaching stations.
Expand vocational rooms, media
center and cafeteria.
Update science labs.
Construct an auxiliary gymnasium.
Upgrade site to provide additional
practice fields and a secure
transportation center.
Construct natatorium.
Project Profile
School: General Needs
Project Cosy $7x522,522
Description:. Energy Conservation/HVAC Upgrades _ ($750,000)
Asbestos Removal ($300,000)
Handicapped Accessibility ($250,000)
Kitchen Facilities Upgrade ($150,000)
Roof Replacement ($750,000)
Carpet Replacement_ ($750,000)
Planning, Management and, Inflation ($4,572,522)
ORANGE COUNTY
SCHOOLS
Construction/Renovation Projects
Project- Profile
school: Orange High School
Project Cost: $1,081,F000
Description: Renovate and expand media center.
(Phase II - Current Project)
Renovate guidance and administrative
wing. (Phase II — Current Project)
Pave student parking lot*
(Phase II — Current Project)
Install air conditioning and new
window system.
Add practice fields to accomodate expanding
athletic teams and marching band.
Project Profile
School: Cameron Park Elementary
Project Cost: $1,301,300
Description: Construct media center, speech and
language space, art room, storage space,
teacher lounge and restrooms.
Convert present space for use in AG
program, Chapter I program, foreign
language, computer lab, music and
Multi — purpose teaching room.
Install air conditioning and replace
windows for entire facility.
Project Profile
School: Central Elementary
Project. Cost: $720,500
Description: Construct five additional classrooms.
Construct additional restrooms.
Replace the 1975 wing addition roof.
Project Profile
School: C. W. Stanford Junior oHigh
Project Cost: $362,500
.Description: Convert industrial arts shop and
dressing room space to
multi — purpose space.
Replace electric boiler system
with gas system.
Project Profile
School: A. L. Stanback Middle School
Project Cost: 1,725,750
Description: Renovate Buildings 100 and 200 .(to
windows, walls, lights, air
conditioning and floor covering).
Provide handicapped accessibility for
vehicles and pedestrian traffic at
Building -200.
Remove Building 300 and regrade site.
Utilize entire facility for adult
education and system level services. .
Project Profile
School: Grady A. Brown Elementary
Project Cost: $640,500
Description: Replace entire roof (originally
completed in 1974),,
Re—design the classroom door and
ventilation system.
Project Profile
School: Efland--Cheeks Elementary
Project Cost: $65,000
Description: Construct P.E storage and office space.
Project Profile
School: "New" Elementary School
Project Cost: $5,591,000
Description: Construct K - 6 elementary school for
700 students (estimate includes
balance of site acquisition,
architect fees, furnishings, utility
service, inflation and contingency).
Project Profile
Project: Bus- Garage
Project Cost: $66,750
Description: Enlarge front parking area.
Install 20,000 gallon diesel fuel
storage tank and pump system.
Project Profile
Project: Energy Retrofit (Phase I and II)
Project Cost: $253,000
Description: Complete recommendations of
energy audits and technical
assistance evaluations.
Project Profile
Project: Warehouse
Project Cost: $50,000
Description: Expand the warehouse with a
90". x 40-f addition.
Projects for Five—Year . SIP
Summary
PROJECT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 TOTAL
County Facilities $ 1,313,460 $2,945,564 $ 3,408,456 $ 2,625,740 $ 1,047,360 $11,340,580
County Equipment 445,000 565,000 220,000 785,000 2,015,000
Parks and Recreation
Master Plan 477,000 620,500 2,108,000 2,237,500 1,055,000 6,498,000
Orange County Schools 5,362,650 3,217,650 2,391,500 612,500 273,000 11,857,300
Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Schools 11,913,206 9,482,550 2,425,500 3,181,153 27,002,409
TOTAL ALL PROJECTS $19,51f,316 $16,831,264 $10,553,456 $ 8,656,893 $ 3,160,360 $58,713,289
tZ/s/ff 7
McDEVCD ASSOCIATES. P.A. p04-
ENGINEERING, PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
919/7E11-56139
3716 NATIONAL DRIVE MAILING ADDRESS:
SUITE 216 P.O. 90X 1E15132
RALEIGH, NC 27612 RALEIGH.NC 27605
December 1S, 1557
Ms . Pamela K . Jones
Management Analyst
Orange County .
300 W . Tryon Street
Hillsboro, N.C. 27276
Re: Orange County Airport Administrative Consulting Services
Dear Pam:
McDEUCD Associates, P .A . is pleased to have this opportunity to
present our schedule of administrative consulting services for the
proposed Orange County Airport. As discussed with you, the following is
a brief outline of some of the items `we can provide assistance with
during the airport development process.
You will note that the- outline provides more detail for headings I thru
IU. These areas should be of current concern. Headings U thru UII will
be of muoh more detail , including many items in I thru Iv, which can be
addressed as they are approached in time. Our scope of work will vary
as Orange County moves through the process and direotions are
established. That decision making process is in itself an area in which
we believe our services are most important.
AIRPORT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTING SERVICES
I • Operating Structure
A. Governing
1 . Citu/Coup Ity
2. Committee/Task Fore= -
3 . Authority/Commission
2 . Personal
- 1 • Staff
a. Administration/Management
b . Planning/Engineering
# c . Lecal
d . Accounting
E. Clerical
r . Other
Z
I
4
2.
I . Operating Structure (ent , )
2 . Consulting
a . Administration/Management
b . Planning/Engineering
c . Legal
d . Accounting
e . Clerical -
f . Other
C. Legal
1 . Policy
2 . Legislation
3 . Ordinances
i . Rules/Regulations
S . Other
D . Insurance
1 . City/County
2 . Other
II . Meetings
A. Governing
E . Public Meetings
C . Public Hearings
D. Other
III . Coordination
A . Local
1 . City
2 . County
B. State
1 . NCDOT
C._ Federal 1 . FAA
D. Other
1 . Land Owners
2. Civic Groups
3. Chamber of Commerce
u. Other
7U. Financial
A. Funding _ ,
1 . Loral
- a . City
b . County
Other
E . State
a . NCDOT Aviation Grants
b . Other
3 . Federal
a . FAA Grants
b . Other
4
3.
IV. Financial (cont . )
Li . Other
a . Private Contributions
b . Other
E . Operations
1 . Accounts
B . Grants
S . Payments
`t . Reports
S . Other
U . Planning
•
A . Airport Location
B . Zoning
1 . Land Use
E . Airspace
C . Other
UI . Development
A . Appraiser
E . Engineer
C . Surveyor
D . Contractors
E. Other
VII . Operation
A . Type
1 . Owner
2. FEO
B . Other
B. Contracts
• C. Other
Although this listing oouid continue, most of the key areas are
mentioned. She process for the r eques ing of Etas aid will require a
number of the above steps to be taken. Should Ora_ra County not
desire
to establish a new operating structure at this time, the application
Mould. be in their name. The request should include reasonably a:curate
funding requirements in order to eliminate later adjustments. for that
reason the State recommends the seieotion of the engineering ronsultart
prior to application in order to have a scope of work with cost defined
to be included in the application. Additional supporting in,formatlDn -
may be required for a successful request.
•
We would suggest a number of items be completed prior to funding by
Grange County and the State . ,The operating structure should be in place
as well as a number of items listed under Coordination and Financial. •
This will help eliminate delays in beginning the planning process once
funding is in plate .
1.
McDEUCO Associates , P .A . proposes to provide the Administrative
Consulting Services of assistance to Orange County at a rate of S50 per
' hour for principal and S35 per hour for staff, plus expenses, to be
billed monthly for payment . We understand payment may be delayed
awaiting funding until July 15E8 . It is estimated that services .
rendered during this six month period, dependant on work scope, will
total 55, 000 . We will work with Orange County to define a scope of
services to stay within that figure or as adjusted .
We look forward to working with uou . on this most important project. If
you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
Sincerely ,
McDEUCO Associates, P .A .
Thomas H . McDowell
lagAS-27.1
Overview of the State Aid to Airports Program in North Carolina
(12-15-87)
State Aid to Airports was initially established by the General Assembly in
1967 with an annual appropriation of $125,000. Under the initial program,
airports which had scheduled commercial airline service were not eligible to
receive state funds. The primary thrust of the program was the provision of
lighting systems and navigational aids for general aviation airports to
assist them in attracting aviation-oriented industrial development. This
economic development thrust of the program resulted in it being administered
through the Department of Conservation and Development's Commerce and
Industry section. Because of the limited amount of funds available, a
typical year's allocations assisted less than a half-dozen airports. In
1969, the annual appropriation was increased to $150,000.
In 1973, North Carolina state government underwent a reorganization in which
the more than 200 independent departments, boards, and commissions were
consolidated into a limited number of functional departments with broad
responsibilities. Under reorganization, the aviation function was
transferred to the new Department of Transportation and housed within a
multi-modal planning and operations division. Since that time, the aviation
function, now known as the Division of Aviation, has remained in the
Department of Transportation.
Also in 1973, the General Assembly revamped the State Aid to Airports
Program by dramatically increasing the state funds available. In FY 1974,
$1 million was made available for grants to general aviation airports. Also
in FY 1974, state assistance was authorized for the first time to airline
service airports, also with $1 million authorized. In FY 1975, the General
Assembly dropped the distinction between airline and general aviation
airports and all airports were eligible for allocations from a single fund
which totaled $3 million. From that time through FY 87, allocations were
made from the state general fund with annual totals ranging from $700,000 to
$3.5 million.
The 1987 session of the General Assembly passed landmark legislation for
State Aid to Airports which ties the amount of annual allocations to state
taxes paid by aviation users. Each aviation user has been subject to a
range of state sales and excise taxes including sales tax on aircraft sales,
aviation fuels, lubricants, and accessories; use taxes on aircraft rentals;
and franchise taxes levied against aviation businesses. Under the newly
adopted Continuing Aviation Funding Program, the estimated revenues from
these taxes are appropriated for use by the Department of Transportation for
State Aid to Airports and related aviation operation and administrative
programs. For FY 1988, a minimum of $5.025 million has been committed and
it is expected that future years' programs will grow with aviation activity.
Since its inception, State Aid to Airports has operated with three major
requirements: (1) Grants may be made only to governmental units and may
only be used on airports owned by and open to the general public. (2)
Except for certain safety and operation programs undertaken by the
Department of Transportation, all grants require a degree of local
participation: 50% local for existing airports; 20% local for the initial
construction of designated new airports. If federal aid funds have been
2
approved, the state funds on that project are limited to 5O (or as
applicable) of the non-federal share of eligible project expenses. (3)
Work elements eligible for participation are limited to those necessary for
planning, land acquisition, grading, paving, and lighting of the public use
portions of an airport. No facilities intended primarily for limited,
non-public access or revenue production may receive State Aid to Airports
funds. Such facilities include such elements as aircraft hangars, auto
parking lots, private space in terminal buildings aircraft fueling
facilities, and airport industrial parks.
Allocations for State Aid to Airports are made as part of the Department of
Transportation's comprehensive Transportation Improvement Program. Requests
for State Aid to Airports are initially reviewed by the staff of the
Division of Aviation and then presented to the Aeronautics Council for
further review and recommendation. The Aeronautics Council uses a priority
system to determine the general need for the work requested. Under this
system, elements critical to flight safety receive the highest priority,
followed by, in descending priority, rehabilitation of existing facilities,
enhancement of capacity, expansion to meet current needs, new airports,
expansion to meet forecast needs, and finally all other elements eligible
for state funding. The final decision on funding is made by the Secretary
of Transportation. Recipients of state allocations are then required to
submit detailed applications, execute Grant Agreements, and comply with
engineering, design, and administrative standards while carrying out the
project.
The Aeronautics Council is the state aviation advisory body created by the
General Statutes. Attached to the Department of Transportation, the Council
is charged with advising the Secretary of Transportation on grants and other
aviation matters which the Secretary might refer to them. The Aeronautics
Council is a 13 member board with members appointed by the Governor for four
year terms. Each of North Carolina's 11 congressional districts has one
Council representative, while two additional members are appointed on a
statewide, at-large basis. The Council meets approximately six times
annually to review State Aid to Airports requests hear other aviation
matters.
It should also be noted that the State Aid to Airports Program places a high
degree of reliance upon private engineering and architectural consultants in
the planning and conduct of projects with state funds. The Division of
Aviation functions primarily as an administrative and review agency and does
not have the staffing necessary to undertake individual project planning,
design, and construction administration. Each local airport Sponsor is
expected to retain qualified professional assistance on the local level to
carry out these functions. In most cases, this means hiring private
consultants who are specialists in various airport categories to undertake
these needed operations. Each local airport Sponsor is encouraged to review
the qualifications of the firm or firms being considered to ensure that the
firm selected has sufficient staff resources, including numbers of staff and
qualifications, and experience to carry out the engineering and
architectural work in a competent and expeditious manner. In addition,
supervision of actual construction is also a local responsibility and is
likewise normally done by private consultants. All of these expenses are
normally eligible for state participation.
One major concern which must be addressed by each local airport Sponsor and
the NCDOT for each project is the degree to which environmental impact
assessment must be undertaken. Under the North Carolina State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) , any project which has the potential for a substantial
adverse effect on the environment must receive an assessment of that
impact. The assessment is circulated through the State Clearinghouse and
all state and regional agencies with an interest in the project are given
the opportunity to review and comment on the assessment. Each state funded
project will be reviewed under NCDOT guidelines to determine what
assessment, if any, is needed. The airport Sponsor is required to prepare
and coordinate any environmental assessment needed in order for the NCDOT to
fund the project under SEPA.
Airport Sponsors should also recognize that a State Aid to Airports grant
carries with it local responsibilities for project administration and
airport operation. The current requirements are contained in the "Sponsor's
Assurances" which are part of the Grant Agreement. Sponsors not familiar
with these obligations should obtain a copy of the Grant Agreement and
review the assurances.
Examples of current assurances include provisions that the airport be open
to the general public without discrimination for at least 20 years, that the
facilities be maintained in a safe condition, and that appropriate land use
controls be implemented to help provide compatible land uses and obstruction
controls around the airport. In addition, certain administrative standards
with regard to the grant must be met including record keeping, accounting
records, and final audit.
For more information on the State Aid to Airports Program, contact:
Mr. Willard G. Plentl, Jr. , PE
Director of Aviation
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Aviation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
919 787-9618
i.w;'r r.:,q -� 'r;.. `r y •:,ti.:.,ry, w a ty, Y{. •. Lu a L11F1 'Wit, L �'�f� -
.c.-,.,;' .. . . :a u: r:'ikt uVE .�' "" ;"lgt scenq$r1;�' r,▪:.93 .... :`A lr%I r. 'p. . ....;y" f t .Y.
t -- >d �"C :r}�Y�F'. �r r�••*,{°.. .ait
E,Y u,,f,„.5: k•„ °+1�•�.,,; .,,. ." 'r,r�: `I 1.' 4 • ` 4.17 r f�My w., Y,-.1.,.,14.4.�:r w`-r,l �` .Rar-". dka, "
Yv.,L ,• .� w ," t, 1 l ee " -,J' 1..':. 1 '. ,k, K # Pr 'Y4�{ �.+ `f �..{ V
i`,L.+ F, tY •-, ,.q 1� •>'V t •.r t, I. ka : rtrr 'E "-�.! a 4t•.,�.A .j i! .° f* "i-. ,,i`.
tf� '�i N .. '.. ..r u � 7y � ,Y�,' t
a,� •� �.,. '.,i ': '. °w 2p tr.;.,p.,, �L'd,?,w v",1+�
+ - - :1.�v. ''j�.i" +r^' ..,w •�'r `• ��1.1.!4liF»BLS Y.Iq�` A ,ti'
.`„"I,n, •+'' ''""w' -1.::"' p;t x.1...4. W',i ° '' - r�.r, .dr,..,`i _ .r�� �r�., -
",A° , t.i..`,,, }, `r'. ^ •"' ,r �. ,r �i x'1.2 •. �.r
' bpd R2 U ^ r r r did �`� tea, . w
,;�;,,;a'ar"% -� 7^�j';,� liywrf. .,g,'' �'�'�"..�'�:'i' :7• , r' {P-,�.., �.•�.�
.W t,. k+:ilk',. •.• .�'IN•.. i •'.a:. y,.'�; •kY.�.'„ 'r{
''. 1 ' : 7 't•`. 'it 1 .
,a; : .2�'•�:1: ',' EA'„r,.J''i; �� ;i 7. V N ryr °� - 1^F'.1w:;,
."+ f” °i '�°" r ',9+;Y,I r.,ry.r' � ,.ri+.,r .,..^5';}�,,y. -yr
h' i a Yf34'.:,i i �ra. .rNr. ,* . yj y, ..:raFti k '.
t,_.-�1.. ,j '37 .3, ,.r�2 ,F.>rf� 'i'" ,,... ,�:::
n,;,Jr ?
_ N
r r ''+ir'*
r P,.
:'i� :pro ,':�,��..„r
� ,�:, yr, ;;�",
�rr r. g ,R 'y:rd
y`�;� _��+�� �:N�' r'!�" ,1:^r,•: y���� � 1d 7, °'8 ';1_M. 1'i r.^_i "t� �w '�
SS
.f 'rP'Id�.',,ik fY�lrr `r'�1?,+r9'+ �' +i, �g'.•'i� - '±'. '.
.;,.�:,• .E;7-•�; X,., a ..W. .k ,.'j +.. r:51. :+- "•.F " ..,.',;,_�: '” L;h- . '-. rr.,w- dw
-,i.. �.�M .�. �Y�ir [rr��,N��7. �� �,Y'�. �,y:. „�Q•� I�'P.. � 'i'�M",,�,�"' �I •4,i���`-AR!���+��
. �' r ��dJ;' g 1'G. �{er` .4 %4 ''y,. -' 'er.,•. �C.,y{i- ;i4"'.
„. '�-{n..r,, yi' E�9 ,iT"! �i i, o„+ ''` ytl r; ..9.:. r�y' :��...^
. . w .. YRW'
�fi �i�r'�tizN...�Y�ur�.:v:�fdraa�?�i�k,'a, dl��:Gta' .a r .